Studies On Some Concepts Of The Alankara Sastra

The AdyUr Library Series —Ne. 33

SOME CONCEPTS OF
THE ALANKARA S'ASTRA

“Thrift pi^Hi

STUDIES ON SOME CONCEPTS'
OF THE ALANKARA S'ASTRA

BY

V. RAGHAVAN, M.A., Ph.D.

Department of Sanskrit ^ University of Madras.
Author of * Bhoja's Srhgdra Prakas^a, ‘ The Number
of Rasas * etc.

THE ADYAR LIBRARY, ADYAR
1942

Price Rs, 4-0-0

Printed by
C ^UBBARAYUDU,

At The Vasanta Press,
Adyar. Madras

FOREWORD

It is my privilege to introduce to the world of scholarship
Dr. Raghavan’s second book in the Adyar Library Series
entitled Some Concepts of Alankdra S^dstra. His first book,
The Number of Rasas, was published by the Adyar Library
in 1940 and the uniformly good reception which it has had
at the hands of literary critics has made me hasten with the
w'ork of bringing out this second publication.

The subject of Indian Aesthetics has yet to be built up by
research work not only in Gita, Natya, S'ilpa and Citra but
also in the important field of Sanskrit Alankara S-astra. The
vast and noteworthy contributions of Indian minds on the
subject of Literary Criticism have not received the attention
which scholars here and in other countries have shown to
Indian contributions to Philosophy.

Bharata who defined Drama as re-presentation of moods
{Bhd:ca-antikirtana) and said that Rasa-anubhava (experience
of Rasa) is its essence ; Bhamaha and Dandin who emphasized
that Beautiful Expression (Vahrokti or Alankdra) is the
vital thing in poetry (p. 260) ; Vamana who stre^d
Saundarya (p. 261) and declared Style (Rlti) as the soul
{Atman) of expression (p. 143) ; Anandavardhana to whom it
was given to show that the revelation in Art takes
place through Suggestion {Dhvani) ; Abhinavagupta who
expressly said that the ‘ soul ’ of poetry is the experience
of Beauty {Cdrutvapratlti^ p. 263), and formulated along

VI

v^ith others, that ultimately Harmony (Aucitya) is the life
of Kavya (pp. 194-257) ; Bhatta Nayaka who distinguished
poetry from other utterances (p. 17) as ‘ Mode of Expression '
{Abhidhavyapara) subordinating both Word and Idea (S^abd<z
and Arth<z) ; Kuntaka who based style on poet’s character
(p. 165), Mahima Bha^^a, Bhoja — these would rank with the
world’s eminent Literary critics. It may well be claimed that
Rasa^ Dhvani and Aucitya form the three great contributions
of Sanskrit Poetics to world’s literature on the subject.

Among the more important topics, dealt with in this
book, Alaitkara, Rlti, Aucitya, Saundarya (pp. 261-3) and
Camatkdra (pp. 268-271), deserve to be specially mentioned.
The treatment is original and some topics have been dealt with
for the first time. The Author has utilized for his studies not
only printed books, but a number of works available only in
manuscript. The accounts are historical and given in great
detail, so that a complete examination of the ideas of all the
writers on a particular concept may lead to the discovery of
several ideas which will be of value for a proper appreciation
of the finer aspects of the rich contributions of the Alankdra
ffdstra. It will be seen that some of the studies take into
account contributions of Western writers also ; and it is hoped
that the comparative study which the author mentions on
p. 255, will be published soon.

It is with great pleasure that I record my sincere thanks
to the author for the co-operation which he has been extending
to me in the publication of the Adyar Library Series.

Adyar G. Srinivasa Murti,

14th April 1942. Honorary Director.

PREFACE

I HAVE dealt with Sahitya, Ukti, Dosa, Guna, Vakrokti,
Alahkara, Dhvani and Rasa in my book on Bhoja’s
S'rhgara Prakas'a. The contents of this volume supple-
ment the studies contained in my book on the S'rhgara
PrakSs'a. The opening study here of the Laksana
forms the first exhaustive account of that little-studied
concept. In the study of the Riti here, 1 have dis-
cussed it in relation to the conception of Style in the
West. The study of Aucitya presented in this book
forms the only account of that important concept. In
these and the other studies in this book, I have, on the
basis of a detailed, historical survey of the concepts as
dev'eloped by the several Sanskrit Alahkarikas, en-
deavoured to understand and interpret their underlying
ideas and the value of these for the art and appreciation
of literature.

I am thankful to the authorities of the Journal of
Oriental Research, Madras, the Journal of the Madras
University, Madras, the Indian Historical Quarterly,
Calcutta and the Indian Culture, Calcutta for their
permission to bring out in the form of this book these
studies of mine on concepts of the Alahkara S'astra
which originally appeared in those journals in the form

VI 11

of articles. I am thankful to the authorities of the
Madras University for permitting this publication, and
to Dr. Srinivasa Murti, Director, Adyar Library, for
accepting to publish this book in the Adyar Library
Series, as also to Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, D.Phil, (Oxon.),
Curator, Eastern Section, Adyar Library, and Head
of the Department of Sanskrit, University of Madras.

Madras V. Raghavan

16 - 3-42

CONTENTS

PAGE

Foreword ...... v

Preface ....... vii

Abbreviations and Select Bibliography ... xi

j|u#aksana . . . . . . 1*47

Use and Abuse of Alarikara .... 48-91

Svabhavokti , . . . . . 92-116

Bhavika . . . .117-130

Riti . ... . . . 131-181

Vrtti in Kavya ...... 182-193

Aucitya ....... 194-257

Names of Sanskrit Poetics .... 258-267

Camatkara ...... 268-271

Addenda ...... 273-277

Index ....... 279-312

ABBREVIATIONS AND SELECT
BIBLIOGRAPHY

{For a full list of Works and Authors^ Index)

I

Manuscripts

Abhi. Bhd, — Abhinavabharati, Abhinavagupta’s commentary on
Bharata’s Natyas'astra. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental
MSS. Library. R. nos. 2478, 2774, 2785
Kavis'iksa of Jayamahgalacarya. MS. described with extracts
in Appendix I, pp. 78-9 of the First Detailed Report of Opera-
tions in search of MSS. in the Bombay circle, 1882-3, by
P. Peterson

Kavyaloka of Hariprasada. MS. described with extracts on
pp.. 356-7 of the Third Detailed Report of Operations in search
of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay circle, 1884-86, by P. Peterson

C. C. — Camatkaracandrika of Vis^ves'vara. MS. in the Madras

Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, R. no. 2679 ; MS. described in
the Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS. in the Library of the India
Office by J, Eggeling, MS. no. 3966

D. R, Vyd, — Das^arupakavyakhya of Bahuriipamis'ra. MS. in the

Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. nos. 3670, 4188
Natakacandrika of Rupagosvamin. MS. in the Madras Govt.
Oriental MSS. Library. D. no. 12900. This work is however
published in Bengali script. Cossimbazar 1907

XII

Rasakalika of Riidrabhatta. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS.
Library. R. nos, 2241, 3274

Rasarnavalankara of Prakas'avarsa. MS. in the Madras Govt.

Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 3761
Ritivrttilaksaija ot Vitthaladiksita. MS. noted in the Catalogue
of Sanskrit MSS. in the Central Provinces by Keilhorn,
Nagpur 1874

Sr, Pra. — S'rngaraprakas'a of Bhoja. MS. in the Madras Govt.

Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 3252.

S'rrigarasara of Vehkatanarayanadiksita. MS. in the Madras Govt.

Oriental MSS. Library. D. no. 12958
S,K.A, Vya , — Sarasvatlkaijthabharanavyakhya of Bhatta Nrsimha.

MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library. R. no. 2499
Sahityakaumudi of Arkasuri. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental
MSS. Library. R. no. 2391

Sahityasara of Sarves'vara. MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS.
Library, R. no. 2432

II

Printed Sanskrit Books

Agnipurana, Anandas'rama Series 41
A. /?.- Anargharaghava of Murari with Rucipati’s commentary.
KavyamMa 5

Anyapades'as'ataka of Nilaka^thadiksita. Kavyamala Guc-
chaka, VI

Anyapades'as'ataka of Bhallata. Kavyamala Gucchaka IV
Abhijnanas^akuntala of Kalidasa with Raghavabhatta’s com-
mentary. N. S. Press, Bombay
Amarus'ataka. Kavyamala 18
Alankai^^kaustubha of Vis'ves'vara. KavyamMa 66
Alankaras'ekhara of Kes^ava. Kavyamala 50
Alankarasangraha of Amrtanandayogin

Xlll

A. S , — Alankarasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Jayaratha’s Vimars'ini.
Kavyamala 35

Alankarasarvasva of Ruyyaka with Samudrabandha’s gloss.
TSS. 40

Aryastavaraja. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam
Au, V,C . — Aucityavicaracarca of Ksemendra. Kavyamala Guc-
chaka I

Karpiiramanjari of Rajas'ekhara with Vasudeva’s com-
mentary. Kavyamala 4

K.K.A. — Kavikanthabhararja of K§emendra. Kavyamala Guc-
chaka IV

Kadambari of Baiia

Kamasutras of Vats 3 ^ayana with the Jayamahgala. Chow-
khamba Sanskrit Series, Benares
K.Pra, — Kavyapfakas'a of Mammata —

—With Ma^ikyacandra’s gloss, University of Mysore,
Oriental Library, Skt. Series, No. 60
— With the commentaries of Vidyacakravarttin and Bhatta
Gopala. TSS. 88, 100

K.M. — Kavyamimamsa of Rajas^ekhara. GOS. 1
K.A. — Kavyadars'a of Dandin —

— With the Hrdaj'-arhgama and the commentary’’ of Taruija-
vacaspati. Edn. by Prof. M. Rangacharya, Madras
— With a gloss, ed. by Jivananda Vidyasagar
• — With an anon, gloss. N. S. Press, Bombay
Kavyanus^asana of Vagbhata. Kavyamala 43
K,A. — Kavyanus^asana of Hemacandra with two glosses by author.
Kavyamala 7i

KA , — Kavyalankara of Bhamaha. Chowkhamba Press, Benares
„ — Kavyalankara of Rudrata with Namisadhu’s commentary.
KavyamMa 2

/i.A.S.S. — Kavyalankarasarasangraha of Udbhata

— With Pratiharenduraja’s commentary. Edn. by N. D.
Banhatti

Xlv

— With Tilaka’s commentary. GOS. LV.

K,A, Su. and Vr , — Kavyalahkarasutras with Vrtti of Vamana ; with
Gopendra Tippabhupala’s commentary. Vanivilas Press,
Srirangam

K,S . — Kumarasambhava of KElidasa

Kuvalayananda of Appayyadiksita with the RasikaraSjani of
Gahgadharavajapeyin. Edn. by Pandit Halasyanatha
sastrin, Kumbhakonam, 1892

Gahgavataraijakavya of Nilaka^thadiksita. Kavyamala 76
Gitagovinda of Jayadeva with the Rasikapriya of Kumbha-
kar^ia. N. S. Press, Bombay

Candraloka of Jayadeva with Vaidyanatha Payagunda’s gloss.

Gujarathi Printing Press, Bombay. 1923
Citramimamsa of Appayyadiksita. Kavyamala 38
Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala. Kavyamala 85
D.jR. — Das'arupaka of Dhananjaya with Dhanika’s Avaloka. N. S.
Press, Bombay, 1897

Dharmabinduprakarana with Municandracarya’s gloss. Aga-
modaya Samiti Series

Dhva. A. — Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana with the Locana of
Abhinavagupta. Kavyamala 25. Edn. of 1928
Nalacaritanataka of Nilaka^thadiksita. Balamanorama
Press, Mylapore, Madras
Nalavilasanataka of Ramacandra. GOS. 29
Navasahasankacarita of Padmagupta. Bombay Skt.
Series 53

Natakalaksanaratnakos'a of Sagaranandin. Edn. M. Dillon.
Oxford, 1937

JV.S'. — Natyas'astra of Bharata

— Kavyamala edn. K. M. 42
— Kaafi Sanskrit Series No. 60

— GOS. edn. with Abhinavagupta’s commentary, chs. 148,
GOS. XXXVI, LXVIII
Nai . — Naisadhiyacarita of S'riharsa

XV

Pra, riid, — Prataparudriyayas'obhusana of Vidyanatha with the
commentary of Kumarasvamin. Balamanorama Press,
Mylapore, Madras

Prai?abharana of Jagannatha. Kavyamala Gucchaka I
Balaramayaija of Rajas'ekhara. Edn. Govinda Deva Sastri,
Benares, 1869

Brhatkathamanjari of Ksemendra. KavyamalSl 69
Brhaddevata. Bibliotheca Indica CXXVII
Bhattikavya

— With the Jaymahgala. N. S. Press. Bombay, 1928
— With Mallinatha’s gloss. Bombay Skt. Series 56-7
Bhagavata purana with S'ridhara’s commentary
Bharatamanjari of Ksemendra. Kavyamala 65
Bhd,Pra. — Bhavaprakas'a of S'aradatanaya. GOS. 45
Bhojacampu. N. S. Press, Bombay.

Mahaviracarita of Bhavabhuti. N. S. Press, Bombay
M.M. — Malatimadhava of Bhavabhuti with Jagaddhara’s commen-
tary. N. S. Press, Bombay
Malavikagnimitra of Kalidasa

M.jR. — Mudraraksasa of Vis'akhadatta. Edn. K. T. Telang. Bombay
Skt. Series 27

Mukapancas'ati, Kavyamala Gucchaka V
Megha , — Meghaduta of Kalidasa
R,V, — Raghuvams'a of Kalidasa

jR.G. — Rasagahgadhara of Jagannatha pandita. Kavyamala 12
R.A,S , — Rasarijavasudhakara of S'ingabhupala. TSS. 50
R.r.— Rajatarangiiji of Kalhana. Bombay Skt. Series 45. 51. 54
Rajendrakarnapura. Kavyamala Gucchaka 1
Rd.Ram . — Ramayana of Valmiki. Kumbhakonam edn.
Lalitavistara. Edn. Lefmann
Lalitastavaratna. Kavyamala Gucchaka X
V, J. — Vakroktijivita of Kuntaka. Edn. by Dr. S. K. De. Calcutta
Oriental Series, No. 8
Vakyapadiya of Bhartjhari

XVI

Vagbha.talankara of Vagbhata with Simhadevagani’s com-
mentary. Kavyamala 48
Vacaspatya

Vasavadatta of Subandhu. Vanivilas Press, Srirangam.

Vik.yV, D. — Vikramorvas'iya of K^idasa

Viddhasalabhanjika of Rajas^ekhara. Edn. Jivananda Vidya-
sagar. Calcutta 1883 '

VisQudharmottarapurana. Venkatesvara Press edn.
Venisamhara of Bhatta Narayaija.

Vemabhupalacarita of Vamana Bhatta Bana. Vanivilas
Press, Srirangam

V,V , — Vyaktiviveka of Mahimabhatta with an anon, commentary.
TSS. 5.

S'abdakalpadruma

S'ivalilarnava of Nilakamhadiksita. Vanivilas Press, Sri-
rangam

S'. V.— Sis'upElavadha of Magha. N. S. Press, Bombay

S'rhgaratilaka of Rudrabhatta. Kavyamala Gucchaka
III

Sabharanjanas'ataka of Niiaka^thadiksita. Kavyamala
Gucchaka IV

SJ{.A . — Saras vatikanthabharana of Bhoja with Ratnes^vara’s
commentary. Kavyamala 95
Sahrdayananda of Krsnananda. Kavyamala 32
Sahityadarpana of Vis'vanatha
Sahityamimamsa. TSS. 114
Sahityasara of Acyutaraya. N. S. Press, Bombay.
Subhasijtanivi of Vedantades'ika. Kavyamala Gucchaka
VIII

Suvrttatilaka of Ksemeiidra. Kavyamala Gucchaka II
Hamsavilasa of Hamsamitthu. GOS LXXXI
Haravijaya of Ratnakara with Alaka’s commentary
Kavyamala 22

Harsacarita of Bana. N. S. Press, Bombay

XVll

III

Bhoja’s S'rngara Prakas'a by V. Raghavan, M.A., Ph.D.,
Karnatak Publishing House, Bombay
History of Alahkara Literature by P. V. Kane, M.A., LL.M.,
being an Introduction to an edn. of the Sahityadarpaija
History of Sanskrit Literature by Dr. A. B. Keith
Pathak Commemoration Volume, Bhandarkar Oriental Re*
search Institute, Poona

Some Aspects of Literary Criticism in Sanskrit or the
Theories of Rasa and Dhvani by A. Sankaran, M.A.,
Ph.D., University of Madras

dkr. Poe . — Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics, 2 Vols., by
S. K. De. M.A., D.Litt.

IV

Annals BORL — Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Poona

Annals of Oriental Research, University of Madras
Indian Culture, Calcutta.

IHQ . — Indian Historical Quarterly, Calcutta

JOR. Madras . — Journal of Oriental Research, Madras

V

Bdla. m . — BalamanoramgL Press, Mylapore, Madras
Bdn . — Edition

G^S } — Gaekwar Oriental Series, Baroda

K. M. — KSvyamSla, N. S. Press, Bombay
iV. S. — Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay

TSS* } — Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, Trivandrum

VyS, — Vyakhyfi

B

XVlll

VI

Authorship and Style : Schopenhauer
Creative Unity : Rabindranath Tagore
Essay on Criticism : Pope
Essentials of Criticism : Lamborn
On style : Demetrius
On the Sublime ; Longinus
Personality : Rabindranath Tagore
Picture of Dorian Gray : Oscar Wilde
Poetic Diction : Robert Bridges
Poetic Diction : Thomas Quayle
Poetics : Aristotle

Poetry as Representative Art : Raymond

Problem of Style : M. Murry

Rhetoric : Atistotle

Rhetoric and Composition : Bain

Sjeyen Arts and Seven Confusions : J. E. Spingarn

Sleep and Beauty : Keats

Some Principles of Literary Criticism : Winchester
Style ; Pater
Style ; Raleigh

Technical Elements of Style : R. L. Stevenson
What is Art ? Tolstoy.

ERRATA

Page

Line

Read

4

11

yacna

5

11

and

5

20-1

The N atakacandrika
of Rupagosvamin
criticises

5

26

in the S'akuntala

5

26

Jagaddhara

8

1

[13?]

38

6

Ritis

52

4

Uddyota

54

23

chapter

74

15

As'vatthaman

75

3

Yathasaihkhya

»*

4

)>

76 ■

26

80

17

fascinate

94

24

striking

116

3

matter-of-fact

121

24

deep-lying

138

13

Ojas

144

28

AkBara^mbara

151

16

158

11

p. 107

161

21

Matthew

XX

Page

Line

Read

191

20

iirar

193

1

211

26

of this chapter

219

13

223

16

over-developed

224

1

224

22

230

29

235

20

Vicitra

238

5

Aladkaraucitya

241

25

Kuntaka’s

242

4

Vakrokti

246

23

Kavis'ik^a

249

4

Lokasvabhavaucitya

254

19

S'rngara

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA
Synopsis

[L Introductory — II. The text of Bharata on the subject :
2 recensions — HI. The literature on the subject — IV. Its three
names : Laksana, Bhusana and Natyalarikara — V. The Das'apaksi,
‘ 10 views on the subject in the Abhinava Bharati — VI.
Probable authors of the views in the Das'apaksi — VI I. Criticism
of the Das'apaks! — VHI. Abhinavagupta’s own view — IX. Other
writers on the subject : Dandin, Dhananjaya and Dhanika, Bhoja,
S'aradatanaya, Jayadeva, S'ihgabhupala, Vis'vanatha, Raghava-
bhatta, Jagaddhara, Alaka, Rucipati, Bahurupamis'ra, Kumbha-
karna, Sarves'vara and Acyutaraya — X. Bharata’s own view ; the
text of Bharata independently studied — conclusion — XI. Supple-
ment : table of the Laksanas in the various lists according to the
different writers.]

I

Sahitya along with grammar and prosody finds treatment
at the hands of Bharata under Vacikabhinaya, the Kavya
which is the text of the drama. The Kavya, Bharata says,
should have 36 Laksanas.

f^^i: 1 XVI. 169. In chapter 17, he gives a list of 36
Laksanas and defines each. In the end he calls them ^

adornments to Kavya. He does not illustrate these
as he illustrates the metres and Alankaras. He does not
specify their place in Kavya and does not define their difference

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

2

from Alankara. This concept of Laksana is not elaborated
very much in later literature on Poetics or Dramaturgy..
Abhinava opens his exposition of the topic by observing that, as
a topic of Poetics, it is quite unfamiliar, Aprasiddha.

rrm: 1

3 ^ I Abhi. Bha. p. 379 .' Many of these look like

Alahkaras while some actually go by names which are
Alahkaras in later literature. There is no clear grasp of
the exact nature of Laksana in the few writers on Dramaturgy
who treat of it. Bharata certainly means them to be features
of Kavya in general and not of drama only. It would seem,
by Bharata mentioning them first and by giving 36 of
them, Bharata considers Laksana of greater importance than
Alankara. It had its day when it loomed large in the fields,
eclipsing Alankara, which was poor in numbers. But gradually
Laksana died in the Alankara S'astra. Writers on drama
took it up, some enthusiastically defining and illustrating
them, some doing so out of loyalty to Bharata and some
dismissing them as having been included in Alahkaras or
Bhavas. This lost Paddhati of Laksana has a history of its
own which is the subject of this chapter.

II

In chapter 17, Bharata gives a list of 36 Laksanas,
defines each and in the end indicates their character and

' References to the Natya S'astra of Bharata are to the Kas'i
edition of that work. References to the Abhinava Bharati are to-
Vol. II of that work in the MS. of the Govt. Oriental MSS. Library,
Madras, the corrupt text of which, I studied and reconstructed
as far as possible with the help of Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswami
Sastri. The GOS Edition of the work, not infrequently, adds to-
the mistakes. See GOS. LXVIII, pp, 290 — 321.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSAnA

3

place in the Kavya in one verse. This portion of the Natya
S'astra has two recensions, even as the portions on metres
and Gunas. The text on Gunas followed by Abhinava is
not the one followed by Mahgala, whose fragments on the
concept of Guna are available in Hemacandra and Manikya-
candra. But as regards metres and Laksanas Abhinava is
acquainted with both the recensions. He notes both the
recensions as regards the definitions of the Laksanas and says
he follows mainly the recension handed down to hirn through
his teacher. 1 ’ p. 384. This

recension enumerates the Laksanas in Upajati metre ; the
other recension, in Anustubh metre. He adds that he will
indicate the other recension also then and there. Accordingly
while treating t)f the Laksanas, one by one, he notices the
definitions in the other recension and also shows, quite
arbitrarily in most cases, how both mean the same thing.
Further, though both recensions have Priyavacana, Abhinava
includes the Priyavacana of the Anustubh list in the Prot-
sahana of the Upajati list, and in the Priyavacana of the
Upajati list itself, he includes the Bhrams'a of the Anustubh
list. Garhana of the Anustubh list is twice included under
Kapata and Karya of the Upajati list; similarly Prasiddhi
under both Akhyana and Anuniti. Paridevana of the Upajati
list is said to include two, Ksobha and Anukta siddhi, of the
Anustubh list. The Kavyamala edition of the Natya S'astra
has the recension followed by Abhinava, the Upajati recen-
sion. The other recension in Anustubh verses is found in the
Kas'i edition which also gives in the footnote the Upajati
recension. The Rasarnavasudhakara and Sahityadarpana follow
the Anustubh recension while Bhoja, with whom elaboration
is the principle, must have been acquainted with both recen-
sions, since he makes up a list of 64 Laksanas from both

4

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'aSTRA

recensions. The Das'arupa follows the Upajati recension.
The two recensions differ in their enumeration as well as
in the definition of each Laksana. Only 17 Laksanas are
common to both. Of the definitions, eight are common to
both, those of Bhusana, Aksara sanghata, S'obha, Gunakirtana,
Manoratha, Prccha, Sams'aya and Prapti ; the definition of
Karya of the Upajati list is the same as that of Garhana in
the Anustubh list ; five definitions agree in substance, those of
Udaharana, Nirukta, Siddhi, Padoccaya and Drstanta ; the
difinition of Anuvrtti of the Upajati list agrees in substance
with that of Daksinya of the Anustubh list. Yanca and
Priyavacana of the Upajati list are defined by the same
identical verse, and the definition suits the latter and not the
former. There are also corruptions in the definitions in both
recensions. The table at the end of this chapter shows the
Laksanas according to the two lists, how Abhinava includes
those of the Anustubh list in one or the other of the Upajati
list, additional Laksanas in other writers, and other details.

Ill

Coming to the literature on the subject of Laksana —
Besides Abhinava’s commentary on this portion of the Natya
S'astra, which deals elaborately with Laksana, earlier com-
mentaries of Udbhata, Lollata and S'ankuka must have dealt
with the concept of Laksana. Bhatta Nayaka’s Hrdaya-
darpana also probably dealt with it. We have sure evidence
of Bhatta Tauta having treated of Laksanas. In an extract
given from his Kavyakautuka in the Abhinava Bharati on
p. 541, Vol. II, we find Laksana included in his enumeration
of the ‘Kavyapaddhatis’, along with Guna, Riti, Alankara etc.
Further Abhinava ascribes to Tauta certain definite views

THE HISTORY OF LAKSAnA

5

on Laksana during the course of his attempt to explain the
difference between Alahkara and Laksana. We noted above
how the Upajati recension was handed down to Abhinava
from his teacher, i.e,, from his teacher’s Kavyakautuka, upon
which Abhinava had commented. Before Abhinavagupta,
views on Laksana w^ere very confused, as is seen from
Abhinavagupta’s commentary on the Laksanas which opens
with 10 Purvapaksas on the real nature of the concept of
Laksana. Bhoja’s S'rhgaraprakas'a enumerates, defines and
illustrates, not 36 of them, but 64. S'aradatanaya follows
Bhoja. The Das'arupa aud Avaloka mention the 36 Laksanas
and briefly indicate their inclusion in Alankaras and Bhavas.
Bahurupamis'ra, in his gloss on the Das'arupa, speaks twice
of the Laksanas and in addition to the Laksanas, mentions also
the Natyalahkaras. The Sahgitaraja of king Kumbhakarna
dealt with the Laksanas. Sarves'vara’s Sahityasara deals with
the Laksanas of the Upajati list. S'ifigabhupala calls them
‘ Bhusanas’, gives 36 of them, defines and illustrates them.
The Sahityadarpana also gives them with definitions and
illustrations. The Natakacandrika, an unpublished work on
Drama, criticises the Sahityadarpana and follows the Rasar-
navasudhakara as regards the 36 Laksanas. From Raghava
bhatta’s commentary on the S'akuntala we learn that Matr-
gupta also dealt with Laksanas separately in his work on
Natya. Raghavabhatta indicates some of the 36 Laksanas
in the several situations of the S'akuntala. Jagadhara is
another commentator who, in his Tika on the Malatimadhava,
points out a few of the Laksanas. Rucipati, in his com-
mentary on the Anargharaghava, points out two Laksanas.
Rajanaka Alaka, in his commentary on Ratnakara's Hara-
vijaya, has occasion to speak of Laksana. Alaka follows the
Upajati recension. The only w'ork on poetics proper which

b

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

treats of Laksanas is Jayadeva’s Candraloka. It defines only
a few of them with illustrations.

IV

Laksana has changed its name in its history. S'inga-
bhupala and his followers call it Bhusana. This name is
derived from Bharata himself describing the Laksana as
< ’ and ‘ \ Though Bhoja calls it only

Laksana, S'aradatanaya calls it Bhusana at the beginning and
ends by calling it Alankara. Jagaddhara calls it Natyalankara.

V

Bharata’s own view of Laksana as far as it can be made
out from his text alone, must be taken up only lastly. Before
that we shall see what views of Laksana are contained in the
Abhinava Bharatl. Abhinavagupta gives a number of con-
fused views held by others and at the end of these he numbers
them as ten. But actually, on first reading, we get only eight
views. The text here is very corrupt and perhaps lost also
here and there. These following ten views can be made out
of this portion of the Abhinava BharatL Pp. 379-381.
Vol. II. Mad. MS.

i. Laksana is different from Guna which is inherent in
Rasa, the soul of poetry. As belonging to the body of poetry,
Laksana is on a par with Alankara with this difference : It is
not separate from the body (i.e.) it is not Alankara

is separate from the body. |

1 Laksana is the body itself and
as such is further adorned with Alahkaras. Just as we take the
metaphor of necklace or anklet when we talk of Alankara

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

7

so also we have to take the metaphor of the Laksana of the
body, such as the Samudrika-laksanas, when we speak of the
Kavyalaksana. This Laksana is twofold — natural, Siddha-
rupa, such as the quality of having broad eyes, and artificial,
Sadhyarupa, such as the occasional grace while adopting a
beautiful gait. In this view, Laksanas are features in the
personality of the chief character of the story.

— I ^

W ^ I P- 379.

1 p. 380.

ii. Some others think that situations or points in the plot
of the drama or the Sandhyahgakas are called Laksana. Just
as the Samudrika-laksanas like Pas'a and Dhvaja indicate the
greatness and the beauty of a Mahapurusa, so also these
Laksanas which are so many points in the development of the
plot beautifying the story ; as beautifiers of the text, they are
called • Laksanas ; but the same are called Sandhyangas as
developers of the plot, and Vrttyahgas as promoters of Rasa.

8

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

’TJc5%:^gqqi%rI; n | p. 380.

iii. Some differentiate Gunas, Alankaras and Laksanas
not by the ^^l^qisfqvilcf adopted by those who hold the first
view, but by defining three different activities on the part
of the poet’s faculty in introducing the Gunas, Alankaras
and Laksanas in a Kavya. The poet’s imagination has three
activities, Vyaparas, and three corresponding vibrations,
Parispandas. In the very first vibration the poet’s genius
conceives the Rasa and its Guna, say S'riigara and its Guna,
Madhurya. The second vibration which is also called
Varnana, effects the introduction of Alahkara. The third
activity chooses the words and ideas. The effect of this third
activity is the actual body of poetry, the Kavyas'arira, suggest-
ing the presence of the ten Gunas, S'lesa etc. That beauty
of the Kavyas'arira which is the effect of this third activity
and which is not covered by the beauty effected by an
Alahkara is what is called Laksana.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

9

f^sif^; (?) II

m goii^^^oifspiTir; i p. sso.

This view seems to be like the first in making Laksana
the Kavyas'arira. This view further seems to formulate two
sets of Gunas, one, the three Gunas , and

which are said to inhere in Rasa as Rasadharmas and the
other, the ten Gunas of the words, etc. The suggesting
of these and the effecting of a fine texture or appearance^
Snigdha spars'a, in S'abda and Artha, forming the body of
Kavya, is said to be Laksana by those who hold this view.

iv. The fourth view, instead of restricting the Laksanas
to Vakyas or points in the plot, lifts them to the position

of — characteristics of different kinds of poems. As

for instance, some poems are characterised by the speciality
of having profuse adornment of Gunas and Alankaras. Such
poems are called by the first Laksana called Bhusana, which
Bharata defines as the ample use of Gunas and Alankaras.

II XVII. 6.

The example given here for such poem, i.e. a Bhusapa
prabandha, is Meghaduta !

p. 381

10

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

V. We are unable to have much light as regards the
iifth view on which we have only a brief remark. It says —

fra I p. 381.

vi. Certain others are said to view Laksana as the
proper use of Gunas and Alahkaras, i.e. in accordance
with the principle of Rasa-aucitya.

1 p. 381.

vii. The seventh view has affinities with the first and
third views. It takes its stand on the fact that Laksana,
like Alankara, belongs to the body of Kavya and secondly,
like Alankara, it is a beautifying factor. The beautiful
Kavyas'arira itself is held as Laksana. Such beauty as is
inherent in Kavyas like the Amarus'ataka, even in the absence
of Alankaras or what may be called natural beauty, is the
proper scope for the concept of Laksana.

(^^01) 53 5T.SI 1 p. 381.

viii. The eighth view has been made out with great
difficulty for the text here is very brief. This view differen-
tiates Laksana on this score : Bharata has given only three
Alankaras, Upama, Dipaka and Rupaka. These three
become infinite with manifold species. The means of their
multiplication is the interaction of these three Alankaras
with the 36 Laksanas. The text available is this —

I p. 381.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA 11

This view is more elaborately found in a further context
on the basis of which we may reconstruct this text thus —

In discussing the difference between Alahkara and
Laksana, in the Alahkara section, Abhinava gives the same
view more elaborately and as his own teacher’s, ix. Bhatta
Tauta’s. Upama becomes by adding to it the

Laksana called 3^3^15 5 becomes if the Laksana

is added to it and so on. This view of Tauta is
very clever and though it does not correctly define Laksana
and its nature, yet indicates how it is an easy transition
from Laksana to Alahkara.

(f?) 1

3iR|ra: I [3T] ra:g;^T i p. 404 .

ix. The ninth view is obscure since, here again, the
text is meagre.

. f^(5r^ I p. 381.

Abhinava later uses this view also and explains it
as the beautification of S'abda by S'abda, of S'abda by
Artha, of Artha by S'abda and of Artha by Artha. In effect
this view also comes to be the same as the third view,
Laksana being held to be such beauty of the body of poetry
as is present even in the absence of any Alahkara.

X. The tenth and the last view, as Abhinava himself
points out, does not differ from the second view very much.

12

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'lSTRA

Just as in the Mimamsa S'astra the different subject head&
are distinguished by the Laksanas, etc.,

so also in Kavya, particular points in the story go by the
name Bhusana, Aksarasahghata and other Laksanas. This
view thus, except for the illustration from the Mimamsa, is
not different from the second Paksa which holds Laksanas
to be ‘ ’s or ‘ ’s.

VI

Now as regards the authors of these ten views — We have
no evidence to definitely affirm where these views are to
be found or who held them^^ Abhinava does not give the
name of the theorists here, as he gives in his discussion
on Rasa-realisation. It is not likely that these ten are purely
imaginary Paksas. In the course of the exposition of the second
and the third view, Abhinava twice quotes Anustubh verses
with the words The third view takes its stand

on Vyaparabheda. From what the Anustubhs look and the
association of Vyapara with Bhatta Nayaka we may conjecture
that some of these views are expounded in Bhatta Nayaka’s
Hrdayadarpana. We also know of the Mimamsa predilections
of Bhatta Nayaka. So it is likely that the tenth view also
is contained in his work. We can also make out the
author of the eighth view definitely as Abhinavagupta’s own
teacher, Bhatta Tauta, whose work, the Kavyakautuka,
must have dealt with the called at some length.

vn

Taking this Dasapaksi — the 10 views given above, — the
ideas more commonly associated with Laksana are these —

1. Laksana belongs to the body of Kavya.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

13

2. It is a beautifying element.

3. As such, its difference from Alahkara consists in this
that it is more comprehensive, is not a separate entity like
the ornament, Alahkara, but is Aprthaksiddha, i,e., is the
Kavyas'arira itself.

4. By itself, it gives grace to the Kavya while Alahkara
is added to it for extra-beauty.

This is one group of ideas, taking inspiration from
the metaphor of Samudrika-laksana. Another line of
thought is not to bring Laksana at all in relation to Kavya
in general nor to take it, like Alahkara, as a beautifying
factor, but to associate it only with drama and the several
situations in the development of its plot. Abhinava and his
teacher took Laksana in accordance with the first group of
ideas, considering Laksana to be ‘Kavya-s'obhakara-dharma,’
a beautifying element pertaining to the body of Kavya in
general. The other line of thought represented by Paksas
nos. 2 and 10, considering Laksana to be like Sandhyahgakas,
which Abhinava does not accept, is the view that has how-
ever survived in some works. The works on dramaturgy
alone (a few of them) treat of it and these take Laksanas
to be features of drama like the Sandhyahgakas. The curious
and purely speculative views, the connection of which with
Bharata’s own view we do not see at all, are views no. 4, which
takes them to be characteristics which classify the Kavyas into 36
kinds and no. 5 which takes Laksana to be the poet’s
The main view which considers Laksana, like Alahkara, as
a beautifying element, but pervading the whole of the body of
the Kavya, died with Abhinavagupta. The concept of Alah-
kara, with which, even at its birth Laksana has an over-
lapping of functions, swallows it up. Even Raghavabhatta
who takes Laksana to be separate from Sandhyahgas, swearing

14

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

by Abhinavagupta’s great pains to explain them at length
as different from Sandhyahgas etc., takes them only as
Natakadharmas and not as Kavyadharmas in general.
Bhoja, S'aradatanaya, S'ihgabhupala and Vis'vanatha accept
their difference from Sandhyahgas, but mention them only
in Nataka and never as being related comprehensively to
poetic expression itself. The Candraloka is the only Alan-
kara work which treats of Laksana as a feature like
Alahkara, of The second line of thought which

connects Laksanas with Sandhyahgas was first uncon-
scious of its suicidal suggestion. Das'arupaka rejects them
on the score that they have no individuality and can be
included in Alahkaras or Bhavas. Vis'vanatha realises this
and says that though the 36 Laksanas can be included in
Sandhyahgas etc., they must be shown to be separately
existent in a drama for the reason that Bharata has treated
of them separately. But many works on dramaturgy do not
treat of the Laksana at all. The reason is plain. The Das'a-
rupaka shows us how the Laksanapaddhati perished. The
Laksanas lacked individuality and most of them showed them-
selves to be some Alahkaras or Bhavas or some Sandhyahgakas.
But it may be observed that the authors on dramaturgy
who have shown an extraordinary genius for classification
and elaboration of Ahgas on a stupendous scale might have
followed the logic of the inclusion of Laksana in other
concepts and saved us their lists of minor Sandhyahgakas,
most of which can be shown to be not different at all
from some Alahkara or Bhava. The same criticism applies
also to the lovers of Alahkaras who have made a list of
more than a hundred of them. As for instance the Visadana
and the Ullasa, Alahkaras in the Kuvalayananda, are cases
of Bhavas.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

VIII

15

Coming to Abhinavagupta’s own view of Laksana — the
main thread of his view must be caught in the bewildering text
on this concept in various places in this chapter. He points
out even at the outset that these views cannot stand to
be logical when we consider the 36 Lak^nas themselves
one by one in the light of these views ; for, to a certain
extent, the views have been purely speculative, spinning round
the word Laksana having its counterpart in the Samudrika-
laksana of the human body, without relating themselves
to the nature of the individual Laksanas. So Abhinavagupta
makes a convenient suggestion that the 10 views cannot be
exclusively and -separately followed.

JT q«lT I

p. 381.

One comprehensive and definite view must be made
out of the cloud of these several Paksas. Abhinava adopts
shades of each view and gives his own definite idea of
Laksana, which itself takes conclusive shape only as he
proceeds further and further. Here and there Abhinava can-
not help pushing new wine into old bottles in his difficult
task. One line of thought he has definitely rejected and
that is, the association of Laksana with Nataka only and
taking it as something like Sandhyafigakas. He refutes this
view in this chapter and elsewhere also while dealing with
the Vlthyangas. He says there —

^ f I

16 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'iSTRA

pp. 481-2.

In this same context Abhinava thus indicates the differ-
ence of Laksana and Alahkara on the one hand and the
Ahgas on the other :

i p. 482.

Having thus rejected the view that Laksanas are identical
with Sandhyahgakas, as also the fourth and fifth views, he
combines the various ideas of the other line of thought and
says that Laksana is Kavyas'arira itself. It is said to be the
Abhidhavyapara itself as a whole. Commenting on the verse —

in the text, Abhinavagupta says that the poetic expression
itself as a whole, written in accordance with the Rasa, is
called Laksana. Laksana is nothing but the Abhidhavyapara
cf the poet’s language intended to evoke Rasa.

This Laksana or the beautiful language or the poet’s
Abhidha itself is what distinguishes Kavya from other

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

17

utterances. And here, as is usual with him wherever he
agrees, Abhinava quotes Bhatta Nayaka, who emphasises
Abhidha, or the poet's Vyapara in choosing the beautiful
mode of expression as the characteristic of Kavya, which is
different from S'astra or Purana. In S'astra, S'abda pre-
dominates. It is enough in Purana if the story, the Artha,
is somehow said. But in Kavya one looks to the delectable
way in which things are put. Thus in Kavya, the Vyapara is
important while word and idea are subordinate.

(3T)^

11

1 p. 383,

Abhinava quotes Bhamaha also here to show that
Kavyas'arira is distinguished from other utterances by the
peculiarity of its expression, by its Later also he

Says —

g^:, ff

55^01 JT i p. 405.

qgi^qjq 1 p. 382 .

2

18

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'iSTRA

Immediately after quoting the above given verses from
Bhatta Nayaka he says —

In another place he says —

p. 399.

If Laksana should be thus taken as equal to poetic ex-
pression, the natural consequence is that Laksanas are not
36 only but as many as the poetic expressions. This Abhinava
grants and says that Bharata only indicated a few, 36 of
such possible Laksanas. He adds that it is because of this
that, according to another view, Bharata gives another set
of Laksanas with definitions. Abhinava here refers to the
Anustubh and Upajati recensions, takes both of them as
given by Bharata, but says, that he follows the list handed
down from his own teacher.*

. . rl5!lT ^

^fq ^ i ^ 3^ ^ \

p. 384.

^ But this is an after-thought which Abhinava got up as
evidence for his view of infinity of Laksanas. It is also a passing
thought, for instead of, consistently with this, explaining the two
sets with different illustrations, he tries with great difficulty to
show the identity of many of the Laksaisas of the Anustubh list
with those of the other, which he mainly follows.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

19

It also follows, if Laksana is Kavyas'arira it has further
adornment with Alahkaras. So says Abhinava —

^

p. 404.

m :3q*n^: I p. 404.

Laksana is Kavya itself while Alahkara is extraneous orna-
ment, Prthaksiddha, Vastvantara.

^S%DT: 1

I p. 382.

Thus Abhinavagupta adopts the first view, the third
view and the seventh view, in generally stating his conception
of Laksana. In interpreting particular Laksanas and their
definitions given by Bharata, Abhinava adopts the other
views related to these views. Thus in explaining the first
Laksana called Bhusana or Vibhusana he adopts the sixth
view. Bharata defines Bhusana thus —

Abhinava says here that Bhusana is the proper use of Alan-
kSras and Gunas in accordance with the Rasa, with an eye
to In pointing out what this Rasa-aucitya is and

how Alankaras should be introduced in accordance with
it, he quotes Anandavardhana’s Karikas in the Dhvanyaloka,

20

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'iSTRA

II Uddyota, on Alankara-samiksa —

etc. and refers to his own Locana thereon.

Then Abhinava adopts the seventh view often in dealing
with the definitions of particular Laksanas and in suitably
illustrating them. The illustrative verses he cites for a Laksana
happen to exhibit an Alankara also. Abhinava notes that fact
and says that the beauty of the verse is due, not to the Alankara
but only to the Laksana. He shows how there is no
by Alankaras. Commenting on his illustration for the second
Laksana called he says —

I

p. 386*

This non-alafikaric beauty in this case is due to the
Laksana, Aksara sanghata, w'hich Abhinava takes as Pada-
aucitya, the suggestive appropriateness of Padas, Namapadas
and Sambodhana padas. Having said this, Abhinava finds
himself hard put to distinguish this Laksana of the Sabhi-
prayatva of Padas from what Bharata has given as the Guna
called Ojas ; he then advances the explanation that behind
Gunas like Ojas, there is a Kavi-vyapara responsible for the
beauty meant by those Gunas and it is that Vyapara which is
Laksana ; and that instances of Laksanas cannot be had
without being mixed up with Alankaras and Gunas.

^ I p. 386.

The natural grace of a verse even in the absence of Alankara
as in the verses of Amaruka is due to Laksana. This is
the view he often adopts. He illustrates the third Laksana
called by the verse in the S'akuntala — ‘ ^

qg: ’ etc. and makes the comment that there

THE HISTORY OF LAKSAnA

21

is no Alankara in the verse but yet there is beauty in it
and that it is due to the Laksana called S'obha.

5T ^T: 5I55[T^-

3l4^TtJIT, ^ (?) I

^ 5?h»Ttl I p. 387.

That the very Abhidhavyapara of the poet is Lak^na is
clinched by Abhinava in his exposition of the fourth Laksana
called Abhimana, by reading that Laksana in the end as
Abhidhana,

sisn^JTTJT:

I p. 387.

He adopts the eighth view, which is his own teacher’s,
in his exposition of the Laksana called and in other

places. Explaining the Laksana called in his illustra-

tion which involves S'lesa Alankara, he says —

1 ^IIT; I p. 388.

Here he adopts the eighth view only slightly. He says
that the Laksana called Gunakirtana helps Upama and
S'lesa and that Laksanas beautify even Alahkaras. He
clearly adopts this eighth view that the further elaboration of

' Regarding the verse defining this Laksana, Abhinava notes
both the variants ‘ Dharyamaiia ’ and ‘ VaryamaQa.’

22 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

manifold Alankaras is the result of their interaction with the
Laksanas, in a further passage under the ninth Laksapa,
Gunanuvada.

31SI 1 . . . . 2f«lT

?T3 ? f% . . . rlrl (f% ?) ^

SSUB^Rtf^lT irfoRT: I iP^slq I

%f][ trfl ^ I

JTM:

5[Fr: I TRT 1 ^T 1 ^

^ i p- 390-1.

Whatever beauty in a Kavya is not due to either Guna
or Alahkara is due to Lak^na. If so, will it not be that
all Kavya is Laksana ? Yes, says Abhinavagupta.

c5^%T: ? m I

p. 391.

Thus in this passage Abhinava combines his teacher’s view,
i.e. the eighth with the seventh, reconciles both by making
them as parts of a bigger and more comprehensive view
of his. Abhinava opines that Laksana is sometimes natural
grace and sometimes it adds beauty to Alahkara also. Thus
he considers it to be more important than Alahkara.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

23

gi^TRf f| qsnJIH:, 5IfT(3DIT)5^(^) I rTT??^-

p. 382-3.

In the explanation of the sixth Laksana, Protsahana,
Abhinava again adopts his teacher’s view and points out
how this Laksana adds Vaicitrya to Aupamya and Aprastuta-
pras'amsa. Under the tenth, Atis'aya, he says that it is
this Atis'aya Laksana that makes the Atis^ayokti Alah-
kara. The ‘ Kavivyapara ’ view recurs under K^ma, the
twenty-eighth ; as the very ‘ Kavya s'arfra the same view
recurs under Anuvrtti, the thirty-first and Yukti, the thirty-
third.

Thus Laksanas are important because they are elaborately
enumerated at first, they are the very Kavyas'arlra,^ or the
Kavivyapara or Abhidha of the poet, they are ele-
ments of natural beauty even in the absence of Alankaras,
they are the factors that multiply the three Alankaras
into many, and they beautify sometimes even Alankaras.
Through the first Laksana Abhinava forces the idea that

* It is this idea of Laksana as the Kavyas'arira itself that
Abhinava holds at the end of his commentary on the previous
chapter, while commenting on the text, ^

which introduces the topic of Laksana in the next
chapter. Abhinava here works out a metaphor with a beautiful
house, the metre being the ground, Laksana, the building of the
house itself, Alafikaras and Gunas, the paintings etc.

^ (?) 5i«w ^ ijpr-

I ’ P. 377.

24 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

Laksana is also a principle of and under the last, he

speaks of Aucitya as the purpose of Lak^na.

1 p. 403. If Laksana should be so elastic or so
comprehensive, we would have not 36 of them only, but
an infinite number of them. Quite so replies Abhinava-
gupta. The Laksanas are and in their combi-

nations with each Alankara, they produce many varieties.
In combining among themselves also they breed number-
less varieties. Thus infinite are the varieties of beautiful
expression in kavya. Abhinava says under the thirty-first,
Anuvrtti :

^ I

55^01 f| 1

I p. 401.

In this passage Abhinava gives a new and clever idea. An
Upama is an Alankara. It is expressed and has its S'arira.
That S'arira itself has to be beautiful. The beauty of the very
expression of Simile or other Alankaras is Laksana. In his
Dhvanyaloka locana, Abhinava has pointed out that Alankaras
have to be beautiful and that expressions like ^ ^ do

not become Alankara because of the absence of a basic beauty
which is necessary. This basic beauty he ascribes to Laksana
in the Abhinava BhSrati in his exposition of the Upama
Alankara.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

25

I p. 405.

IX

Dandin, as he was going, cast a remark on Laksana.
For him the whole Kavyaprapanca is Alahkara-Brahman.
Naturally he considered Laksana to be Alahkara. When he
considered even the Sandhyahgas and the Ahgas of the
four Vrttis, Kais'ikI etc. as Alahkaras, it is no wonder
that he considered so this concept, Laksana, which has so
much in common with Alahkara. He says —

11 II, 366.

The Laksana referred to in this verse is Bharata’s Laksana.
Tarunavacaspati says — I
^ 1 Alahkara in Dandin is a wide berth which can con-
veniently accommodate these and many more.

The Das'arupaka mentions the Laksanas at the end and
does not treat of them since it includes them in Alahkaras and
Bhavas. This attitude is very logical, since many of the
Laksapas are either Alahkaras or Bhavas. The text says —

' The text of Bharata here is Jlfl
and ‘ Bandha ' here meaning merely ‘ composition * can hardly bear
the interpretation Abhinava puts on it.

26

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

The Avaloka adds —

»TTa(t^ =^’ ^-

?I?rf*lkTci, ^ I

Bhoja, in his S'rhgaraprakas'a (Vol. II, Chapter 12, p. 450,.
Mad. MS.), while dealing with the technique of the drama,,
says first that the drama shall have 64 Laksanas.

55^^^ 3^ f #f I

He comes to the topic, Laksana, on p. 524, first enumerates
64 of them, then defines and illustrates each. Bhoja is
given to elaboration and he takes up some of the Anustubh
list of 36, some of the Upajati list of 36, adds a few which
are his own and thus makes a good number of 64. Certain
numbers have a destiny and in Bhoja’s bulky writings, in
his classifications, such numbers appear often. This chapter
is called ^ ^ dealing with 4 sets of 64

Angas of the Prabandhas. Thus it is out of an artistic sense
of uniformity that Bhoja made Laksanas also 64. For Bhoja’s
list, see table at the end.

Bhoja is acquainted with both the lists of Bharata. His
definitions are mostly reproductions from Bharata with slight
variations. From the name of the chapter we are to take
that Bhoja considers Laksana as a 3^5=^!^ like
with which it is clubbed together and described. He
generally says that they are for beautifying the work*
At the end of his treatment of the Laksanas he says of
them —

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA 27

R5r?t?^T^DTTq rf3|; II

Bhoja takes Laksanas'^ as features of dramas only. He tries
to give us some distinction between the Laksanas and the
Sandhyahgas. After illustrating the first Laksana called
Bhusana, which is speech full of Alahkaras and Gunas^
he says —

?S5?TT I ^ 3'JIT^^KT 2T«IT?TWifjftqT: I

.... ? I 3

I ■

The text is incomplete and corrupt. Bhoja means to say that
just as the first Laksana involves Gunas and Alahkaras, so also
the others and it is this that differentiates Laksanas from Sandh-
yahgas which do not involve Guna or Alahkara. This expla-
nation is clever and shows us how many Laksanas look like
Alahkara but is not wholly sanctioned by Bharata, who
described Bhusana alone as being ' profuse with Gunas and
Alahkaras ’ and never meant the extension of its nature to
the other Laksanas also. No doubt, some Laksanas definitely
mention and involve a few Alahkaras.

S'aradatanaya, in his Bhavaprakas'a, deals with Laksanas
in Chapter 8. In the Natya S'astra we see the Laksana des-
cribed as Bhusana.

1 ^ So some writers have called the Laksanas Bhu-
§ana also. There is propriety in this name from the point of
view of function, since all the writers say that Laksanas adorn
the Kavya. S'aradatanaya calls them Bhusanas and gives

28

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALA^iKiRA S'ASTRA

them as one of the items in the technique of Nataka. He
says — ^ ^ ’ t ‘36 Laksanas also But while

enumerating and defining he gives 54. At the end again he
mentions their total number as 64 and calls the Laksana here
‘ p. 224. Gaek.

edn. Thus, as in other places, the text of S'aradatanaya
causes great confusion. S'aradatanaya’ s list contains Laksanas
from both the lists. A few of them are new. 26 are from
the Upajati list and 14 are from the Anustubh list. The
remaining 14 in the total of 54, are new. They are —

3n«R:, 3f%:, ^51: and I

Two of these, and are found in Bhoja’s list.

“Naya may be Bharata’s Anunaya and Parivada may be
Bharata’s Parivedana or Paridevana. S'aradatanaya’s defini-
tions of the Laksanas are most of them brief adaptations of
Bharata’s definitions.

Jayadeva’s Candraloka is the only work on poetics which
treats of Laksanas along with such topics as Guna and
Alankara. It is curious how Laksana found its way into
this work of later times, not dealing with dramaturgy. Jaya-
deva is aware of the topic of Laksana but is not sure of
its nature or place in Kavya. Even among the Laksanas, he
gives with definitions and illustrations, only a few. Mayukha
3 of the Candraloka gives the following Laksanas : —

and — all of the Upajati list. It is

remarkable how Jayadeva missed the very first Laksana
called Bhusana and the no. 36 also and gives only 10.
Jayadeva’s definitions of these are concise and more definite

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

29

than those in Bharata and when we read these together
with their illustrations, we cannot miss the fact that it is
not very far from Laksana to Alahkara. In the last verse
he briefly indicates the nature of Laksana and says that
Laksanas like the above given ten, are many.

Just as Mahapurusas like kings have the Laksanas, a gold-
bright forehead etc., Kavyas have their Laksanas. Vaidya-
natha Payagunda, in his commentary on the Candraloka,
says in an earlier context, that the Laksanas are Kavya
Jnapaka, an attempt at explanation which does not carry him
or us far.

Again, if we go through the 5th Mayukha and its list
of Alankaras, numbering hundred, we find there, besides
and other names, associated in Bharata
with Laksanas, which must have very early passed into the
fold of Alankara, some of the above given ten themselves
are counted as Alankaras. Thus we have

arid Among these, the illustration for

alahkara in the Kuvalayananda is an adaptation
of that given for the Laksana of the same name. The
same illustration — is given for
both and

S'ihgabhupala also calls the Laksana, Bhusana. (R.A.S.
chap. Ill, pp. 247 — 264. Triv. ed.) He considers them as
beautifying elements of the plot of the drama.

30 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'iSTRA

He completely follows the Anustubh list with this minor
difference that he reads %?[ as and gives the synonym flgC-
for Bharata’s Rpi S'ihgabhupala takes Bharata’s

own definitions and compresses them in half verses. In
some cases, as for instance in the definition of he is
more definite than Bharata, by restricting a comprehensive
idea to a particular case. His definitions of

are reproductions of Bharata’s verses.

Vis'vanatha, in chapter six of his S'ahitya darpana,
treats of Laksana. He gives the 36 of the Anustubh list
with this difference that he gives Sanksepa newly in the
place of Ksobha. Some of his definitions of these are succinct
adaptations of Bharata’s, while some are reproductions of
those of Bharata. He points out their existence in dramas
with illustrations. He realises the logic of the attitude of the
Das'arupaka but is more loyal to Bharata, for the sake of
whose words he takes that there should be 36 Laksanas in
dramas. He says in the end —

Besides these 36 Laksanas, Vis'vanatha has another set of
similar items which he calls Natyalankara. They are 33 in
number. When we go through this list we find that most of
them are the Laksanas themselves of the Upajati list.
Thus we find here 311^1:, JRqE:, 3q-

qf^:, qpsn, 3ip?qiqq:and

12 from the Upajati list of Laksanas. While dealing with
Laksanas in that same name he used the Anustubh list with
a small difference. He left out and had in its place

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

31

The Ksobha left out there has entered this list of 33 Natya-
lahkaras. The remaining 20 of this list are not available
anywhere in the Natya S'astra. Among those Laksanas of
the Upajati list which" are not common to the Anustubh list
also, there are yet

and seven, which are not taken at all.

The first writer who is now known to have introduced new
Laksanas is Bhoja. In his list of 64 which contains all
the 36 of the Anustubh list and a few of the Upajati list, he
introduced 12 new Laksanas,

and Of these 12, and are the only two

found in S'arad,atanaya’s list of 54. It is quite likely the text
is not complete and S'aradatanaya who numbers Laksanas in
the end as 64, took more of the above 12 of Bhoja. Vis'va-
natha follows S'aradatanaya and takes the following of
S'aradatanaya’s new Laksanas,

and numbering 9.

The remaining eleven in the 20 are new, found only in
Vis'vanMha. They are

qrficqq, and

5FIII . It is likely that some of these are really S'arada-
tanaya’s, ten of whose 64 are now missing in the text.^ Of
these is said to be by Vis'vanatha. If so,

it is not different from Bhoja’s which is

explained as is the same as Bhoja's

is unnecessary reduplication for it is described just as the
other Natyalahkara called which is a Laksana in

Bharata’s Upajati list. There does not seem to be any

' Gaek. ed. pp. 223-226.

32

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'ISTRA

distinction between and is nothing^

but Bhoja’s mf^t. need not be a separate Natya-

lankara, since he has already given a Laksana called

Why is it that Visvanatha made two separate topics as
Laksanas and Natyalahkara and how ? The materials for him
are the 2 sets of Laksanas in Bharata and those in Bhoja and
S'aradatanaya. Visvanatha took the Anustubh list to represent
Laksanas and made out a 33 from the Laksanas of the
Upajati list and of S'aradatanaya’s list and called the latter
Natyalahkara. Visvanatha perhaps wanted to stick to the
number ‘ 36 ’ given in Bharata. S'aradatanaya says at the end
of his treatment of Laksanas —

This use of the words ‘ Alahkaras of Nataka ’ gave a con*
venient title under which, with a claim to be more neat and
to have introduced a new item, Vis'vanatha could put all the
other Laksanas.^ Jagaddhara who takes this name applies it
to Laksanas themselves which will agree with what S'arada-
tanaya has actually said. Further Vis'vanatha seems to have
thought that he could easily interpret the word Alahkara in
the following verses of Bharata which he quotes Here, as
Natyalahkara, whereas, it refers only to figures of speech.

* Matrgupta seems to be the first to speak of the Natyalahkara.
We see it mentioned in his definition of Nataka, as also the Laksana
under the name Vibhusana, as quoted by Raghavabhatta in his
commentary on the Sakuntala.

srm n Kale’s ed., pp. 5 and 6.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

33

Vis'vanatha realises also that Natyalahkara is not much
different from Laksana and that both again, to speak boldly,
are unnecessary, since they turn out to be either Bhavas,
Alahkaras or Sandhyahgas.

Talking of the function of Natyalahkara he says — ^ ^TI^-
which vague description is further argument for
what we have said just above.

Taking Laksana as a feature of drama only is a view
narrower than the one attached to that word. Bhoja, S'arada-
tanaya, S'ihgabhupala and Vis'vanatha have narrowed it
further by mentioning them only in Nataka, the first and
best form of drama. Raghavabhatta in his commentary on
the S'akuntala criticises Dhanika for the inclusion of the 36
Laksanas in Alahkaras and Bhavas. He quotes the authority
of the Abhinava bharati for proving the difference of Laksana
from these and promises to indicate the Laksanas in the
S'akuntala in the course of his commentary. The list of
36 Laksanas is quoted by him from Matrgupta. This long
passage and discussion on Laksana is found only in the
Nirnaya Sagar edition of Raghava Bhatfa's commentary and
of the S'akuntala. The edition of Mr. Kale, without any
discussion at all, points out the first Laksana called * Bhusana ’

34

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

as being present in the portion up to the verse of Act I
^ ^ etc. Raghava Bhatta is not so enthusiastic

over Laksana as he goes further, for he points out only
nine of them in Act I, none in Act II, only two in Act III^
none in Acts IV and V, only one in Act VI and only two
in the last Act. These are the Laksanas he points out —

srfvraiq;,

and sqgqq:,

numbering fourteen, all belonging to the Anustubh list. The
definitions he gives for some of these are from S'ingabhupala.
These Laksanas he points out just in those places which
S'ingabhupala himself has given as illustrations.

Jagaddhara in his tika on the Malatimadhava indicates
four Laksanas in Act III and two in Act IV. He gives their
definitions which resemble but are not exactly those in
Bharata. These six are

and These are from both the Anustubh and the

Upajati lists. He calls them Natyalankara.

Rucipati, in his commentary on the Anargharaghava,.
points out two Laksanas in Act IV, calling them by the name
Natyalankara. These two are and (p. 157 and

p. 182, Nir. edn.). He also quotes definitions for these two
under the name Bharata, but the definitions are not from
Bharata. The second, is no Laksana in Bharata. Bhoja

is the first to give it. Thus Rucipati follows some unknown
writer who followed Bhoja but substituted the name Natyalan-
kara for Laksana.

Rajanaka Ratnakara, in his insatiable love for S'lesa,.
introduces the Natyas'astra very often in his Haravijaya. In
the penultimate verse (57) of canto XXI he describes a
Nataka, through where he mentions Laksana.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

35

5r%g¥lTIF^q^ |

It K. M. edn., p 286.

Rajanaka Alaka says in his commentary here —

STWTfJI qftq^: ....

qft»?iq5TT’ fcTIT^2I:[l] =q3':^f5(;) ^^Tf&l(l) (^^oufJ}) ‘ fq^iqoi

^TS^Isqq^T^aiTq^Tf^ I

Ratnakara refers to Laksanas as a feature of the Nataka.
Alaka follows , the Upajati list. We cannot get much out of
his vague explanation of the nature of Laksanas as

; but we see that he followed Bharata and held
them as features of Kavya and not of Nataka only.

Bahurupamis'ra, commentator on the Das'arupaka, a
writer later than S'aradatanaya, speaks of Laksana twice ;

(a) Commenting on Das'arupaka III, 32-33 :

qi i

Dhanika says : S8JCTI; 3jqilIT^f5^: |

Dhanika takes Alahkara in the text as Upama etc. But
Bahurupa takes Alahkara also as Natakalahkara, Atis'aya
etc., and Laksana as the concept of the same name.

:jqqT3:q^S^fHT; 1 3lf^5iqT# | ^

!^T^q^q?sFci^qT5iiTgqTqTq^qq5q?:T^fq i

P. 35, MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental MSS. Library.

(b) At the end, the Das'arupaka says

etc. Here Bahurupa gives the Laksanas, Bhusana etc. and

36

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

says that, similar to the Laksanas, there are also others
called Natyalahkaras.

Thus Bahurupa has two sets, one called Natakalahkara
and the other Laksana. The MS. gives a list of Nataka-
lahkaras and Laksanas and there are gaps in the MS.

HT^T, . . . RlfH:,

gonf^TT^:, . . . ST^t:, 3TTWH:, W:,

^n=ERT, (^w), ^r^-

RfRI:, 5l\»TT, jpi-

3TT^?Tm, Ti^R:, goiT-

3TTS^(5I)q;,

^’R, f

The text unfortunately stops with ‘ Iti. ’ Bahurupa’s position
regarding Laksana is similar to that of Viswanatha and it is
most likely that S'aradatanaya’s fuller text is the basis for
Bahurupa whose two lists contain Laksanas of both the
lists in Bharata and those found newly in S'aradatanaya.
See also my article on Bahurupamis'ra’s Das'arupavyakhya,
J. O. R., VIII, pp. 333-4.

There is evidence to show' that the Sahgitaraja of king
Kumbhakarna dealt with the Laksanas. In his comments
on S'!. 12 of the last canto of the Gitagovinda, Kumbha says
in his Rasikapriya :

301^^^ RT^^R: I —

THE HISTORY OF LAKSAnA

37

Gunakirtana is a Laksana of the Upajati list in Bharata.
Kumbha’s definition of it follows Bharata’s. It is not known
how many Laksanas Kumbha recognised and whether he
took also those of the'Anustubh list. See Annals B.O. R. L,
yol. XIV, Pts. 3-4, my Note on the Sangitaraja — (pp. 261-262).

Sahityasara of Sarves'vara, a work (Madras MS.) in 631
Anustubhs treats of the Laksanas in Ch. Ill (p. 28). It gives
in Arya verses the 36 Laksanas of Bharata’s Upajati list :

^ofigqT^; n 5

<T«rT^T'T; I 2=36

^TTZ^r 1^: II

Each is defined in a half-verse. The definitions are note-
worthy, being original though untrue in some cases. Bhusana
for instance is defined as an Alamkara-dominated expression.

Aksarasanghata is defined as Vamana’s Arthaguna called Ojas,
the Praudhi of the variety called ‘ condensed expression ’ —
^ qcTlfiiqi I

The Sahitya mlmamsa (TSS. 114) says that some
speak of 36 Laksanas in a Kavya, similar to the Samudrika
Laksanas in a man, but these are included in the other
already accepted concepts. The work here gives the Upajati

38

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'ASTRA

list and reproduces Bharata’s definitions of the first three
Laksanas. (pp. 117-8.)

Acyutaraya, a modern writer, considers Laksana as one of
the six Gunas of Kavya in his Sahitya Sara. Acyutaraya has
a new conception of Guna, which is like the Alankara of Bhoja.
Under it come Rasas, Vrttis, Ritis and Laksanas.

I S'l, 10, Ch. I, p. 8.
in ^3111 : II

The Laksanas mentioned here include Bharata’s Laksana,
for the commentary says:

moTi^i— 1’’ p. 9. These are called Gunas because they are
^ Rasikahladaka

At the end of the chapter on Gunas (7th), the work says :

^T5'^5 ^3 I

sn^ccifq gfiTlR^T II

’TT'f^T^Ra ?TJTTN: ^ I

^ II S'ls. 207-8.

Com. I RTf^f^flTrl^^OTT-

^1^^: I ^

?IT5^3iIT-

3fT%OTRf5iM %f^

This is a strange conception of Laksana. Acyutaraya knows
Laksanas only through the Candraloka. But while the Can-
draloka gives ten, Acyuta chooses only two from them. These
two Laksanas, Aksara samhati and S'obha, the three Pakas,

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

39

Gambhirya, Vistara and Riti which are three S'abdagunas of
Bhoja, S'lesa, Samata, Sukumarata, Madhurya, Udarata,
Preyas, Samadhi, Sauksmya, Sammitatva and Ukti which
are ten Arthagunas of Bhoja, — these are put together into a set
of 18 items and meaninglessly labelled as the 18 Laksanas.
See Sahityasara, pp. 353-4, N.S. Edn.

X

Now, coming to Bharata’s own idea of Laksana, — he says
after treating of the metres —

In the end he says ‘ ^11 ’ and

Again he says :

From these we are sure that Bharata meant Laksana as
Abhinava and Tauta took it, to be a feature of Kavya in
general and not of drama only as all the above mentioned
writers on dramaturgy took it. Bharata meant it to be on a
par with Alahkara and Guna as a feature of Kavya in general.^
The second idea that we cannot miss in Bharata is that
Laksanas, though different from Alahkaras, are themselves also
another species of beautifying factors. In this capacity they
are called ‘ Vibhusaiia

' m I ’ ‘ I I ’

' Though, while defining the Laksanas individually, Bharata
occasionally uses the expression ‘ Natakas'raya See the
definitions of Prapti alone in the Anustubh list, and of Akhyana,
Prapti and Upapatti in the Upajati list.

40

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

Bharata does not illustrate the 36 Laksanas, as he does
the Alahkaras. Nor does he make any attempt to differentiate
them from Alahkaras. He gives only three Arthalahkaras,
Upama, Rupaka and Dipaka. He indicates 5 sub-classes of
Upama. Bhatta Tauta has taken that the manifoldness of
Alahkara is achieved by combining Alahkaras with the
Laksanas. For instance, he says that the Upama called
is got by combining the Alahkara Upama with the
Laksana called • that is got by com-
bining and the Laksana called Such ingenuity

is all Tauta’s own. Bharata does not indicate this. He
simply says that he has pointed out five kinds of Upama
and that the intelligent must take other varieties from Kavya
and Loka.

^ II

Nor in his definition of does Bharata indicate

anything like what Tauta has said. Bharata really does not
propose to himself the task of distinguishing the concept of
Laksana from Alahkara. From what we see in the chapter,
i.e. the 17th, in his time, the concept of Laksana had much
development, while that of Alahkara was in its infancy. The
fecundity of the latter that produced in course of time a breed
of more than a hundred Alahkaras is not seen in Bharata. But
many of these later Alahkaras have their counterpart in Laksa-
nas. The Lakanas had developed separately as adorning features,
independently of Alahkaras, and in themselves they constitute
a double personality. When we critically examine the 36
Laksai;ias, they fall into two classes. One class of them looks
like Alahkara, being mere turns of expression. As a matter of

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA 41

fact, we have actually Laksanas with the names of some of the
later Alahkaras themselves. For example,

3Tra?iq:, and %5T:.

There is also It is another matter that the definitions

of these are not exactly the same as in later Alahkara works..
Besides, the two Laksanas and involve

Aupamya and Sadrs'ya. Aksarasahghata and S'obha involve
S'lesa. The definition of contains the mention of

and as part of that Laksana. In their definitions,

and involve Sandeha and Ullekha. The definition of

glfn makes it the

I

snft ^T^Tfq !1

The Laksana called 3Tfi[5JTq contains

The Laksana called is quite different from the

Alahkara of that name. Les'alahkara is thus defined by
Bhoja —

qj 301^1 1

^ ^TF^T n

The Laksanas called Gun^ipata and Garhana (Karya in
the Upajati list) correspond to this Vyajastuti. They are
thus defined ;

SDTT^TT^ JTf^ %?T^f II

‘ Protsahana, Gunanuvada and Hetu of the Upajati recension
involve Aupamya.

42

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

3iiiTfriqraT^ ^msT n

The Laksana called ^5T is said to be a clever speech
suggesting through the mention of a similar thing —

The Laksana involves the Alahkara

The Laksana called ?g becomes f^g in Bhoja, S'aradatanaya

•v

and Vis'vanatha. As Bharata has described it, it is only

The Laksana called is an element which has
been associated with many fFI^T varieties of Alahkaras like
etc. The Candraloka actually mentions Mala as an
'element helping many Alahkaras.

I V. 121.

We can see the value of Bhatta Tauta's suggestion in
such cases. The Laksana called has in its definition

the word ^ ^ and is actually the of later

literature, i.e.

I

II

looks like and ^4 is nothing but

or =^13. Thus, Laksanas of one class are clearly
Alahkaras or approximations to Alahkaras or light shades of
Alahkaras to be mixed with many a major Alahkara. Abhinava
realises this when he describes Laksanas as
and This class of Laksanas is really a supple-

mentary list to the three Alahkaras of Bharata. The seeds of
many of the later Alahkaras are available among these

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA

43

Laksanas. Leaving aside the late stage represented by the
Candraloka in which Laksanas like and

have become Alahkaras, we can take that, very early,
some of the Laksanas passed into the fold of Alahkara.
Bhatta Tauta’s view may suggest this historical fact. We
have other clear evidences on this point, a Laksana of

the Upajati list, is an Alahkara in Bhatti and we can see it in
its transition from Laksana to Alahkara. Bhamaha mentions
indifferently that it is an Alahkara according to some (III. 55).
Similarly a Laksana in both the lists of Bharata, can be

seen in its stage of transition into Alahkara in Bhamaha and
Dandin. Bhamaha refuses to accept it as Alahkara since
it is devoid of -Vakrokti (II. 86). Some pre-Bhamaha writer
must have made it an Alahkara. Bhamaha points out that
only definite and remarkable turns of expression must be
named Alahkara. But soon, since it was the palmy days of
Alahkaras when many things entered its fold, we find Dandin
asserting that is a great Alahkara, is an

Alahkara, firmly established, in Dandin. But poor Hetu had
a chequered career \ The name Natyalahkara might have
also helped some of the Laksanas to become Alahkaras. The
evolution of Alahkaras from three in Bharata to what we have
in Bhamaha is an interesting study but the gap is all darkness.
We feel that in that stage of the history of Alahkara, the
concept of Laksana and the merging of most of it in Alahkara
is a big chapter.

But we must be clear as regards this point : in the first
class of Laksanas which are mere turns of expressions there
are various grades. While some are plainly Alahkaras, others

^ See Udbhata, Rudrata and Mammata ; also the Alahkara
chapter in my Ph.’ D. Thesis on Bhoja’s S^rhgara Prakas'a.

44

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'aSTRA

have an element of Alahkara in them, the expression as a
whole being more than Alahkara.

The other set of Laksanas shows a different character.
They are not ‘ ,

nfoTH, etc., belong to this class. The Upajati

list contains mostly Laksanas of this class, ,

3TI^5=a[?lil , ejm, q^raq^J^, stg-

etc. Most of these are Bhavas or actions
resulting from certain Bhavas. These would give support to
the view which takes the Laksanas as minor Saridhyahgakas..
But this view cannot hold good regarding the other class of
Alahkara-like Laksanas.

Bharata himself seems to be conscious of this double
personality of his Laksanas when he says at the end of the
section on Alahkaras —

Some Laksanas are These are turns of express-

ion, those of the first class, related closely to Alankara. Others
are These are related to Bhavas and form the

second class. Thus the two main lines of thought in the
given in the Abhinava bharati hold good as regards
these two aspects of Laksanas. There will be much ‘ Kles^a ’
if one tries to make all Laksanas look like turns of expression
and factors of natural grace, or to make all Laksanas
look like or The Das'arupaka realised

these points and included part of them in Alankaras and
part in Bhavas.

^ Abhinava has the reading ‘ % and takes it as empha-

sising the principle of Rasa-aucitya in the use of these Laksapas:
^ etc. p. 408.

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA
Table of Several Lists of Laksanas

45

Anustubh list of

Those of the
A n ii,s t u b h list
found in the

Bharata.

Upajati list of

1.

Bharata.

1.

2.

2.

3.

3. ?Tt*lT

4.

7.

5.

11. %g:

6.

24.

7.

22. ?aFd:

8. ai%:

29. arfif:

9. 3?f^RR:(3tr-

5I2J: — Bhoja)

10.

11.

8.

12.

14. flife:

13.

14.

15.

10. ®rfetq:

16.

17.

15. a^^a:

18. ?sq;(f#sq,—

Bhoja)

19.

20.

21- tif|a4q:

22. S'a.)

New Laksapas of the Upajati
list, indicating within brackets
how Abhinavagupta (AG.) in-
cludes in these, those of the Anus-
tubh list which are left out. Bh.==
contained in Bhoja’s list. Sa. =
contained in S'aradatanaya’s list.

4 (Bh.) (S'a).

or )

6. a>eTiini (fa# For

its definition, see Gaek.
text; the Kas'i text enu-
merates it, but in its
place defines fq%qoii 3 [
of the Anustubh re-
cension (Bh.) (S'a.)

9. (Bh.) (S'a.)

13. and

16. (Bh.) (Ba.)

18. afFRTJiq (Bh.)

S'a.) (af^fe;)

19- *11=5^ (Bh.) (S'a.)

)

20. (Bh.)

(Isa:)

23. (Bh.) [also called

JTra# by AG.] (tJTSr)
52. 31I5Tt: (Bh.) (S'a.)

27* (Bh.) (S'a.) Gap in

AG.’s text here. (Garhana
is included here by AG.)

46 SOME

CONCEPTS OF

ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

23. 3Trppi;

28. m (Bh.) (S'a.)

24. tTT55T

25.

30. 'JiaRTOH (Bh.) (S'a.)
(f^R:)

26.

3 1 . (Bh.) (S'a.) [also

27«

called 3?5|^; by AG.l
(313517:)

28.

32* 3qqf^; (Bh.) (Sa.)

29. ?,^T

21.

(3qf^)

30.

12. eTf«m

33. 3^: (Bh.) (Sa.)

31.

17.

(aifitarq:)

32. —

34. ^7*1 (Bh.) (Sa.) [also

S'inga.)

called by others.

33. or

says AG.]

34.

5.

35. mm-

35. 3?g«%f5:,

or firfs:

(Once more here sfefe:)

36.

21.

36.

Total common and

with the Ann- In the 26th , AG.

stubh list—

-17 includes

New Laksa^ias of Bhoja.

S^a.= contained in S'aradatanaya’s list. Vis'.—Vis'v'^anatha.

1. (S'a.) (Natyalankara in Vis^)

2. (S'a.) May be the correct form of the Paridevana
in Bharata’s Upajati list.

3. (3?I^T:) (Natyalankara in Vis'.)

4. Compare Kapata in Bharata’s Upajati list.

5. ^if:

6 .

7. Natyalankara in Vis'.)

8 .

THE HISTORY OF LAKSANA 47

9.

10 .

1 1 . srfenwij. (g%r3T4gR: Natyalankara in Vis^)

12. Natyalankara in Vis'.)

New Laksanas of S'aradatanaya.

Na. Vis'.=Natyalankara in Vis'vanatha.

1. "1^: (may be Anunaya of Bharata).

2. 3tNiw«I .

3.

4. (Na. Vis'.)

5. (may be Bharata’s (Na. Vis'.)

6. (Na. Vis'.)

7.

8. aim; (Na. Vis'.)

9. 3f^:

10 .

11. 5lf4; (Na. Vis'.)

New Natyalankaras of Vis'vanatha, names which are not
Laksanas in Bharata’s Upajati or Anustubh lists, or in those of
Bhoja and S'aradatanaya.

1. nl;

2. aiRl^IT

3.

4.

5.

6 .

7.

Note. In Laksattas, Vis'vanatha has a new one called
instead of of the Anustubh list. This ^¥1: is made a Natya-
lankara. Certain Laksanas of the Anustubh list themselves are
made Natyalankara wi^h a slight change in name, e.g.
and 3q^5liT Jnsiiaf,K:

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKARA IN SANSKRIT
LITERATURE

Poetry is not mere thought. ‘ While great poetry must
necessarily embody it, very genuine poetry, at times, may do
no more than give to the merest airy nothings a local habita-
tion and a name.’ ‘ Poetry does not reveal truth in logic but
in light.’ ^ Mere thoughts and emotions are proper subjects
for the science of psychology etc. Facts, by themselves, are
unattractive ; sometimes reality appals us ; but poets teach us
as they charm :

m ^ II

— Nllakanthadiksita, Sabharanjanas'ataka.

Dars'ana has to wait for Varnana.’ It is wrong to regard
poetry as merely truth or noble emotion. Who can deny the
validity of the statement —

^ Quotations of this nature occurring in this chapter are chiefly
from five works : Raymond, Poetry as a Representative Art ’,
Lamborn, ‘ The Essentials of Criticism ’, Bain, ‘ Rhetoric and
Composition,* and Tagore ‘ Creative Unity * and ‘ Personality

* cI*IT f| ^ I

55^% SIT^ICJI !I II — Bhatta Tauta.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKARA IN SANSKRIT 49

%

Yet, is it poetry ? Are there not hunger and suffering in the
poor Brahmanas’ plea to the king —

Yet, the king refused to help them and the story goes on to
say that the king gave them presents only on hearing the other
half filled, the story says, by Kalidasa, with the extravagant
plumes of figurative language.

True, as Leigh Hunt says, ‘ there are simplest truths often so
beautiful and impressive that one of the greatest proofs of the
poet’s genius consists in leaving them to stand alone, illustra-
ted by nothing but the light of their own tears or smiles, their
own wonder, might or playfulness’. But, as he himself points
out elsewhere, ^ in poetry, feeling and imagination are neces-
sary to the perception and presentation even of matters of
fact The so-called figure of natural description, the Sva-
bhavokti, is a plain statement only in a comparative degree.
Plain fact or feeling is always embellished in some manner
and given some catching power. Who can refuse to recognise
the difference between a proposition like ^ and

this Svabhavokti of Kalidasa :

— Kumarasambhava, III.
Even the natural description of a poet has its strikingness ;
Bana says that Jati must be Agramya,

(Harsacarita). Bald statements are thus excluded. Bhamahaalso
excludes ordinariness in expression in his description of poetry :

=31 1 K. A. I. 19.

ft ft

50 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKXRA S'ASTRA

I

So poetry requires not only fact and feeling but a beautiful form
also ; it has not only to be useful, but primarily attractive.
That all poetic expression involves some kind of expressional
deviation of beauty,* some out-of-the-way-ness, is well brought
out by the following verse of Nilakantha diksita :

— S'ivalllarnava, 1. 13.

This expressional deviation, this striking disposition of words
and ideas, is Alahkara ; this constitutes the beautiful poetic
form. It will be easier to dissociate love from its physical
aspect than to keep the concept of poetry aloof from its form.

If we try to arrive at a clear definition of poetry with an
objective differentia, certainly the definition will revolve round
the concept of Alankara, the word Alaiikara being taken here
in the widest sense of that term in which Bhamaha, Dandin
and Vamana understood it. Alamkara is the beautiful in
poetry, the beautiful form, — (Vamana). Examin-
ing the field of poetic expression, Bhamaha found Alankara
omnipresent in it. When we reach the stage of Appayya
diksita, who has given as many as one hundred and twenty-five
Alankaras, we see that the whole range of poetry is almost
‘Vyapta’ with Alankara in general, is ‘Avinabhuta’ with
Alankara. And to this numberlessness of Alankara, Ananda
refers to t

on»PF?R^I?i; (The Locana adds here, | Dhva. A.,

* Cf. Bain : ‘ A figure of speech is a deviation from the plain
and ordinary mode of speaking, for the sake of greater effect : it is
an unusual form of Speech Rhetoric and Composition, I.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKiRA IN SANSKRIT 51

p. 88. Mahimabhatta says : ^ ^qi

I ’ V. V., I, p. 3, T.s.s. ‘Ji^JifoT^TTsofn^
ST^fK^qqmri: I ’ Ibjd., II, p. 87. ^ tf^5qiqi:q?rfq

qq;T55WFiq^lK: l ’ ‘ 'qi^cqu^nc: 1 ’ Commentary on the V.V.,
p. 4, T.S.S. : ‘ aqj =q I ’ Ibid., p. 44.

Namisadhu also says ‘ cl^T qiqJ^T aiqqqjrn^q?^!-

S^^Tl 1 ’ Vya. on Rudrata, p. 149. Ananda has this further

remark—' rirf (?:^t) qi^qf^qi ^q^RR^SSSf rt: 1 ’

p. 87. If Alankara is understood in this large sense as
^emphasising the need for a beautiful form in poetry, it is
not very improper for the subject of poetics to be called
Alahkaras'astra.^

Thus, Alankara, properly understood and properly em-
ployed, can hardly be a subject for wholesale condemnation.
This is said not only in view of the large sense in which
we have tried to explain it above. Taking the figures as such,
the best definition we can give of them is that, in a great
poet, they form the inevitable incarnations in which ideas
embody themselves. Says Ananda :

q?Tqclf?^T I * * > 5^ I

qT=5qfq^T Rq I— Dhva. A., p. 87.

Such figures can hardly be considered ‘ Bahiranga *, in
Kavya, and comparable only to the * Kataka’ and ^ Keyura
.the removable ornament. Therefore Ananda continues:
^ rRUT?! ^qt I ’ p. 87. They should properly

* On the names of the Alankaras'astra, see below.

52

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

be compared to the Alahkaras of damsels which Bharata
speaks of under Samanyabhinaya, Bhava, Hava etc. and not
to the Kataka and Keyura. (N.S'., XXII, K.M. edn.)^

Ananda says in Udyota II that, though Alahkaras are
only the S'arira, the outer body, they can be made the S'aririn,
the soul, sometimes, ix,, when Alahkaras are not expressed
but suggested ; when simile, contrast etc. are richly imbedded
in an utterance and in the clash of words in an expression,.
Alahkaras shoot out.

—II, 29, p. 117.

Here Abhinava says: As a matter of fact, Alahkaras are
external ornaments on the body but can sometimes be like the
Kuhkuma smeared for beauty on the body, when they are
organic and structural, when they are

and Far, far away is the hope to make this Alahkara

the very soul. But even this is possible in a way, says
Ananda : just as in the mere play of children, there is some
temporary greatness for the child which plays the role of
the king, so also, when this Alahkara is suggested, it attains
great beauty and partakes of the nature of the soul.

cfsilfq ^#TT?IT, I

^ There is the * Alahkara ’ in Music also, with which profitable
comparison can be made here but for the obscurity of the concept
in early music literature and the changes in meaning the concept
uliderwent in its later history. (N.S'., K.M. edn., XXIX, 22-31.)

* On the greater beauty of the implied or suggested figure
as compared to the expressed figure, see further Ananda, III, 37,.
p. 207 and Mahima, V.V., p. 73;

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKARA IN SANSKRIT 53

1 5n55^f!^]^Tfq

1— Locana, pp. 117-118.

It must be noted here that Abhinava compares the Sus'lista
Alahkara to Kumkumalahkarana, and raises it above the level
of the altogether external jewel worn, the Kataka. Bhoja
realised the insufficiency of the comparison with Kataka.
Alahkara as ornament of a woman also was understood by
Bhoja in a large sense. Bhoja classified Alahkaras into those
of S'abda, Bahya, those of Artha, Abhyantara and those of
both S'abda and Artha, Bahyabhyantara. The first, the most
external, the Verbal figure of S'abdalahkara, Bhoja compared
to dressing, garlanding and wearing Kataka etc. The third,
he compared to bath, treating the hair to fragrant smoke,
smearing the body with Kumkuma, Candana etc. Beginning
from outside, these are more intimate with the body. The
second, the purely Abhyantara Alahkaras, the Arthalah-
karas, Bhoja compared to cleaning the teeth, manicuring,
dressing the hair itself etc. These last are most in-
timate ; nothing not forming part at all of the body is
here superimposed.^

sfTHT:, I

5nftT: — I

1 5fTllT«F^FT: — etc.—

S'rhgaraprakas'a.

'Cf. Abhinava: ‘%qRT«^TOori Sfrtk’ijntt

«riir^J?rart

— Locana, p. 117.

54 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

Albeit the importance of form, one should not misunder-
stand rhetoric as poetry. It is possible to sacrifice poetry at
the altar of figure. There is such a thing as Aucitya, ap-
propriateness, harmony and proportion, which is the ultimate
beauty in poetry. The final ground of reference for this
Aucitya, the thing with reference to which we shall speak of
other things as being appropriate, is the soul of poetry, Rasa.
The body becomes a carcass when there is no soul there^
when life is absent from it. Of what use are ornaments on a
carcass ? Nilakantha diksita says :

II

— S'ivalilarnava, I, 36.

Ksemendra, the systematiser of Aucitya, says : ‘ Enough with
Alankaras ; of what use are the Gunas if there is no life there ?
Ornaments are ornaments ; excellences are excellences ; but
Aucitya is the life of the Rasa-ensouled Kavya ’ :

f% I

— Au. V. c., 4 and 5.

See also the Vrtti on these ; also my Ph. D. thesis, chaper on
History of Gunas, vol. I, Pt. 2, pp. 334-5.

Here Ksemendra has only amplified Abhinava and Ananda
who say :

^ ^ JT «IT%, 3T55-

I — Locana, p. 75..

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 55

II Dhva. A., p. 145.

What is this Aucitya ? It is the clear statement of the
proper place and function of Alahkara, as of other elements.

RTflNRf: ^ ^ I

31^^: I ap^siT 3

Jf I . . . . 21^15—

. . . .

^ sf^g^ 501 •• 11' — au. v. c.

Thus Alahkaras have their meaning only if they keep to their
places :

52WR I

^ g«n^?n^ II Dhva. A., II, 18.

Just as a pearl-garland can beautify only a full bosom, and
otherwise cannot be a beautifying factor, only an Alahkara

‘ Vide below chapter on Aucitya.

gonsri i

f^«i% goisrw: 11

— Quoted by Municandracar 3 ^a in his Vrtti on the Dharma
binduprakaraoa, Agamodaya Series Edn., p. Ua.

56

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ISTRA

appropriate to Artha and through it, to Rasa, can be of any
beauty.

11 — Au. V. c. Ksemendra.

Cf. Bhoja, S.K.A. I. 160 :

^"TTW 5RJT3JT55

t etc.

Ksemendra proceeds to show how some poets have
observed this rule of Aucitya of Alahkara and how^ some have
not. He points out the conceptual flaws in the latter, going
against the main subject and sentiment. The Pratyudaha-
ranas are cases of abuses in so far as the authors of those
verses have written those figures with an effort, merely
because they desired to add figures. When the great poet is
concentrating on Rasa, when he is a the

sense of harmony and appropriateness attends on him, innate
in him like instinct ; there is hardly any room for impropriety.
But when concentration is on figure, error creeps in. We
shall consider two examples : The broken minister of the
Nandas, stealing into the enemy’s city over which he had
once ruled like a king, looking like a serpent stilled by in-
cantation consumed by his own

inner fire, sees a dilapidated garden and describes it :

irm i

11

— Mudraraksasa, VI, 11.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 57

The plight of the garden resembles his own pitiable state and
with great appropriateness in the conceiving of the similes,
Vis'akhadatta has drawn a mere description nearer to the
context, harnessed it "'for Rasa and heightened the effect of
the situation/ On the contrary, we shall now cite a verse
from the Bhoja Campu w^here the poet has created a figure
not only not in harmony with the main idea and the context
but also so inappropriate as to make, as Ksemendra says, the
hearts of the Sahrdayas shrink.

There is Hetu-Utpreksa here: the poet imagines that Brahma
presented himself before the Adikavi, as if jealous of the
appearance of (his spouse) Vam (speech or poesy) in another
person. As a matter of fact, it is to bless and give Valmiki
his favour to sing the whole Ramayana that the god descended.

One can make Alankara render the help its name means
if he introduces it in such a manner as it will be conducive
to the realisation of the chief object, namely Bhava and Rasa ;
that is, Alankara must be Rasabhavapara. That which is
adorned by an Alankara is the Rasa. Even as the ordinary
ornament, the jewels, putting them on or laying them dowm,
suggest to us the mental state of the person, so also does
figure suggest the Bhava.

11 — Dhva. A., II, 6.

* A similar instance of appropriateness of figurative description
is Baija’s description of the red evening and the approach of the
night in which the king goes to help Bhairavacarya’s Sadhana
in the S'mas'ana.

58

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'lSTRA

I ’ — Locana, 74-75-

Thus whatever, remaining in a functionary place, aids to
embellish and add to the main theme’s beauty is Alahkara-
Rasa also can thus be employed as a decorative, as an
Alahkara, to adorn a Vastu (idea) or Rasa/

Raymond ^ expresses a similar opinion on Alahkara :
‘ The one truth underlying all the rules laid down for the
employment of figures is that nothing is gained by any use of
those which does not add to the effect of the thought to which
they give expression. Language is to express our thoughts
to others and in ordinary conversation, we use both plain
and figurative language but when a man wants to give another
the description of a scene he has seen, he does not catalogue
one and all of the details of that sight, but brings only his
own idea of the landscape b}^ adding to such of the details
as have struck him many more ideas and emotions that
have been aroused in him. ’ Thus he transports his mental
image to the hearer and if the representation is comparatively
plain, we have Svabhavokti. ‘On the other hand,- if he
realises that it is hard for the hearer to understand him fully,
he gains his end by repeating the statement, or by adding
illustrative images to the mere enumeration of facts. ’ [Com-
pare Rudrata, VIII, 1.

11 ]

* Rasavad alankara. Locana, pp. 72, 73, 74.

^ Poetry as a Representative Art.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 59

^Thus the poet puts extra force into his language and in
order to do so, inasmuch as the force of language consists
in its representative character, he will augment the representa-
tion by multiplying Kis comparisons : his language becomes
figurative. ’

From the verse of Rudrata quoted above, we see that
a complex situation or an anxiety for clearer or more effective
expression necessitates figures. Similarly a thought that is too
simple, too ordinary or too small to impress or get admiration
by itself, needs figurative embellishment. We shall consider
this view of Anandavardhana with his rules for the employ-
ment of these figures in such secondary and ordinary moods
and thoughts. Even as he grants high flights in supreme
moments, he grants even the bare S'abdacitra ample provision
in Rasabhasa. Heroic deeds, unselfish love, sacrifice — things
great in themselves appeal to us even when directly expressed
with minimum figure. But ordinary things must have purple
patches.

All these facts about decoration by figure in poetry are
realised by Ananda who has formulated rules for the proper
employment of Alankara. Western writers also have laid
similar conditions regarding ornament. Pater says : ‘ And

above all, there will be no uncharacteristic or tarnished or
vulgar decoration, permissible ornament being for the most
part structural or necessary He continues : ‘The artist,
says Schiller, may be known by rathei what he omits and in
literature too, the true artist may be best recognised by his
tact of omission. For, to the grave reader, words too are
grave ; and the ornamental word, the figure, the accessory
form or colour or reference is rarely content to die to thought
precisely at the right moment, but will inevitably be stirring a

* Style by W. Pater.

60

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

long “ brain-wave ” behind it of perhaps quite alien associa-
tions ‘ As the very word ornament indicates what is in itself
non-essential, so the “ one beauty ” of all literary style is of its
very essence and independent of all removable decoration ;
that it may exist in its fullest lustre in a composition utterly
unadorned, with hardly a single suggestion of visibly beautiful
things.’ * The ornaments are “ diversions ” — a narcotic spell
on the pedestrian intelligence. We cannot attend to that
figure — that dower there — just then — surplusage ! For, in
truth, all art consists in the removal of surplusage.’

Such strictures had to be passed by Ananda also ; for
when he was thinking out the essence of poetry, Sanskrit
poetry had deteriorated into an artificial stage. A blind
tribe — Gaddarikas — was following a beaten path and was
hardly proof to errors of taste. Not poetry, but the imitation
thereof, was being assiduously produced. ^1^4,

Dhva. A., p. 220.) To guide such poets,
not gifted with S'akti enough to possess an innate sense of
Aucitya, Ananda lays down his rules for the employment of
Alankara. As has already been pointed out, Alankara is
subordinate to Rasa ; it has to aid the realisation of Rasa.
It shall suit the Bhava and be such as comes off to the poet
along with the tide of the Rasa. It shall not monopolise the
poet’s energy nor shall it be so prominent or continued as to
monopolise the reader’s mind. Says Ananda :

*T5l: II ®

—Dhva. A., II, 17.

' As if translating Ananda, Tolstoy calls bad Art * Imitations
of Art ‘ What is Art ? ’ Ch. XL

* Bhoja also speaks of this Rasak^ipta and Aprthagyatnanir-
vartya Alankara in his S.K.A. (Ch. V) and S'r. Pra. (Ch. XI).

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKlRA IN SANSKRIT 61

(i) Alankara shall be intended to suggest Rasa.

(ii) It shall be born along with the poet’s delineation of
Rasa.

(iii) It shall be naturally and easily introduceable.

(iv) The poet shall not stop to take a fresh and extra effort

to effect it.

Such a figure is allowed as proper in Dhvani. This is the
‘ permissible ’ ‘ structural ’ figure that Pater speaks of. Such
Alankara is born almost of itself. Such is the poet’s genius
that w hen the figure is actually found there, it is a wonder.

Ananda, p. 86.

Abhinava, p. 86, Locana.) This Alan-
kara properly functions to heighten Rasa. For instance, ia
the verse : ‘ etc.’ ‘ the S'atha

Nayaka w^ho entreats the Khandita Nayika describes her Anger
as another lover who is dearer to her than himself, though he
may even fall at her feet. In the last line here, there are
S'lesa, Rupaka and Vyatireka Alankaras, which, far from
hindering the realisation of the Rasa ’of Irsyavipralambha,.
intensify it.

Though a perusal of an Alankara text-book gives the
impression that the Alankaras are artificial, elaborate and
intellectual exercises requiring great effort in turning them,
out precisely, — things that must rather be avoided than handled
w ith all their ‘ chidras ’, the)^ are not really so difficult of
effecting for a masterpoet. With him, as emotion increases^,
expression swells and figures foam forth.

See my‘ Ph.D, Thesis “ Bhoja’s S'rngara Prakas'a ”, VoL I, Pt. 2 ,
chapter on Alankara. Such Alankaras, Bhoja says, cannot be even
spoken of as having been introduced or added.

’ See Dhva. A., p. 86.

62

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

3T55^T^T??T^Tfoi ^ ^qTfp%!^:

1 '

— Dhva. A., pp. 86-87.

We have many instances in the Ramayana where we clearly
:see this connection between emotion and figure, though
not as a rule. There is at least a strong tendency to wax
figurative in forceful situations. The description of lamenting
Ayodhya on Bharata’s return from the forest and Sita’s condem-
nation of Ravana on seeing him out of his guise are two
of the striking examples. There is, further, a tendency in the
Ramayana to employ figures profusely in descriptions. The
opening canto of the Sundarakanda contains a figure in almost
overy verse, surcharged as the canto is with Adbhutarasa. To
quote only one instance, we shall pick out this description
of the broken Vis'vamitra from the Balakanda :

d

I

Jra: n

* Cf. ‘ The more emotions grow upon a man, the more his
speech ; if he makes any effort to express his emotion, abounds
in figures — exclamation, interrogation, anacoluthon, apostrophe,
hyperbole (yes, certainly hyperbole 1) simile, metaphor. His
language is what we sometimes euphemistically describe as
‘picturesque’. Feelings swamp ideas and language is used to ex-
press not the reality of things but the state of one’s emotions.’
J, S. Brown, ‘ World of Imagery ^ Quoted by K. A. Subrahmanya
Ayyar in his ‘ Imagery of the Ramayana’, J.O.R., Madras, Vol. Ill,
pt 4.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 63

11— Ra. Ba., 55. 8— 10.‘

*

But there are also places in the epic of high strung emotion
where figures are not employed at all and the sublimity or
pathos of the situation {e.g. Rama weeping on the loss
of Sita in the closing cantos of the Aranyakanda) is left to
itself to appeal to us with its own grandeur and beauty.

In Kalidasa, we have many instances of figures rushing
to the poet’s pen in moments of overflowing Rasa. Every line
is a figure in Pururavas’s description of Urvas'I who has
captivated his heart, as he sees her slowly recovering from
stupor :

3WT 11— V.U., I.

And in the Mudraraksasa, we have a similar situation with
abundant figures. In the glee of his success, Canakya exclaims
as he hears that Raksasa has come :

Ill: 1

RrfWrfscig: H

— M.R., VII, 6.

But to write such figures, the poet must be lost in Rasa and
must have infinite Pratibha. Those who do not naturally get

Kumbhakonam Edn.

64

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

these figures in such an appropriate manner can employ figures
effectively if they do so with discrimination, Samiksa.

^ II

— Dhva. A., p. 88, II, 18.

What is this Samiksa ?

1

^ ^ Ji|oic2TTnl II

II

— Dhva. A., p. 88, II, 19-20.

(i) Alahkaras must be ancillary, Ahgabhuta.

(ii) They must never become main, Pradhana or Ahgin.

(iii) The main theme shall always be kept in view and
the figure in consequence must be taken and thrown away in
accordance with the requirements of the main idea.

(iv) They must not be too much elaborated or overworked.

(v) Even if they are worked out, a good poet must take
care to give them, on the whole, the position of Anga only,
(i) In the verse from the S'akuntala ‘ ^

etc.’, the description of the natural acts of the bee^
is introduced as Ahga to intensify the chief Rasa
of S'rhgara. (ii) There are instances in which we see poets
drifting along in the world of imagery itself without returning
to the point on hand. The poet begins a figure and does it
in such a detailed manner that it outgrows its proper limit.

^ See Dhva. A., pp. 89-94 for the illustration and discussion of
these canons.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKSRA IN SANSKRIT 65

I ’ — Dhva. A., p. 89,

I ?l^«r Wl^dl fd . . 1 ’ — Locana, p. 90.

The illustration for this given by Ananda is the verse ^

€fT?I etc/, where the main idea intended to be adorned by the
figure is lost in the elaborate reaches of the Prayayokta, which
has overgrown and hid the main idea, (iii) Opportune
introduction is illustrated by the verse ^ etc.’

where S'lesa finds timely introduction ; as Abhinava says,
this description paves the way for the coming Irsyavipra-
lambha. (iv) In the verse ^ etc.’, for the sake

of the main Rasa, Vipralambha, and for the sake of another
Alankara, namely Vyatireka which is to heighten the Vipra-
lambha, the figure of S'lesa worked out in the first three lines
is abandoned in the last line. This illustrates * kale tyaga ’.
(v) There are instances where Alafikaras are merely touched
upon and left there ; lesser artists sit to work them out.
In the verse

etc.

the Rupaka of Bahupas'alatika and Bandha is not worked out
in any artificial and tiresome manner. If the poet had worked
it out, Abhinava says, it would have been very improper — 'll?!.

This verse illustrates ‘ 5Ilftl^l%^f^.’ (vi)
Such a genius like Kalidasa can work out a figure in full and
can see that the main Rasa is not only not hindered by it, but
is actually intensified by it. E,g. Megha. The

5

66 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

Vipralambha S'rngara of the theme is again brought to
the forefront in the last line to be nourished by the
Utpreksa.

When used thus with appropriateness, Alahkaras go to
enrich the ideas of the poet and add charm to the diction.
Of these Alahkaras, we shall here speak in particular about
a few select ones. Figures can be classified into three main
classes : (i) those based on Similarity, Upama and all other
figures involving Upama; (ii) those based on Difference,
Virodha, and (iii) those based on other mental activities like
association, contiguity etc. In the third class can be brought
all the figures other than those based on Aupamya and
Virodha. Of these, figures involving similarity are the most
abundant in poetry. ‘ The intellectual power called similarity
or feeling of agreement is our chief instrument of invention.’
‘ Applied literally in the sciences, it leads to unity through
induction’. In metaphysics, is mentioned as

means to Tattvajnana and Nis's'reyasa by Kanada.

The greatness of Upama is thus put by Appayya diksita
in his Citramimamsa :

11

Abhinavagupta also said : “ ^ RSf?*.

” (Abhi. Bha. p. 321. Gaek. edn. II), referring
evidently to Vamana, IV. iii. 1,

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKlRA IN SANSKRIT 67

Great artists are said to express an idea; great poets are
explained as inculcating a lesson to the times through their
work. It is impossible to conceive of such idea and lesson
except through the principle of imagery ; the great poem being
something like a big, deep-laid Anyapades'a. In philo-
sophical teachings, simile plays a very large part. Simile,
Metaphor, Allegory, Parable — these are often employed to
inculcate the profound truths of the incomprehensible. As
Rudrata points out in his verse, etc., the

Simile is for clearer understanding. But poetic imagery, like
the variety of life, involves similarity in difference. *

5^ ^ I ^ ‘ The things compared in a figure though

differing in kir^d possess an amount of similarity, rendering
the one illustrative of the other.’ Though ultimately, Simile,
like any other figure, must heighten the Rasa, there are,
comparatively speaking, two kinds of this figure, the intel-
lectual and the emotional. The former appeals to our
intellect and is designed for that and the latter is used to
heighten the sentiment. The intellectual simile must have
maximum catching power ; it must be very striking and at the
same time, the point of similarity must be relevant ; it must
not be accompanied by any further details that may distract
or mislead.

— Ramayana, Aranya, 8, 8.

II

— Ramayana, Aranya, 16, 22.

68 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

These beautiful instances from the Ramayana have the
required novelty and strikingness. As J. S. Brown ‘ says, the
pleasure we derive from a comparison — to which we stick,
however much we may call it odious — is in the sudden
bringing together of two notions which were a moment before
unconnected and remote from one another. This element
of agreeable surprise falls under intellectual appeal. The
following are two more instances :

^ m I
5^^ II

(?) I

gST: II

‘ The matters compared here are so different ; we are startled
by the ingenuity displayed in bringing them together and the
effect is an agreeable fillip of the mind, ’ In this respect,
the danger of abuse lies in the lack of caution in the poet,
in obscurity and far-fetchedness and the dwindling down of
the similarity to a single and mere matter of fact point.
There was a Christmas sales ’ advertisement in a card with
a dog whose tail had been cut; the dog was looking at
its shortened tail and underneath was printed ‘ It wili not be
long now before Christmas, as the dog said about its tail ! '
Such instances are effective means for comedy and humour
and typical instances can be gathered from Dickens’s Sam
Weller in his Pickwick Papers.

Coming to the other kind of Upama: Later poets,
wherever they might have been, however little their knowledge

‘ ‘ World of Imagery. ’ Quoted by K. A. Subrahmanya Ayyar
in his contributions on ‘ Imagery of Ramayaija’, J.O.R., Madras,
Vol. Illf Pt-

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKiRA IN SANSKRIT 69

of things or imagination might have been, had a Kavis'iksa
to supply them with as many moons and lotuses as they
wanted. Though one had not seen the Himalayas, he devoted
a canto to its description with all the stock-in-trade and trite
figures, mistaken informations filling verse after verse. The
absurdity is seen clearly in the capricious geography of India
which Vamanabhattabana teaches us in his Vemabhupala
carita. In Upama, the necessity for novelty is overlooked
and the anxiety to abide by the qualification ‘ Sammata ’ has
been the cause of monotony. Anybody could write out a
hundred verses any day on the sunrise, with the red sun,
the lotus and the bee and the waning moon, their one single
feature of looking like lovers being done to exhaustion*
Appayya diksita defines Upama thus:

Others also have pointed out the defects in the form and
content of Simile. Even as it is not poetic figure to be
comparing things by their Padarthatva, it is not poetic figure
if it is too trite or too often repeated. Emotional intensity
and intellectual delights are derived only from such figures
as are ‘ As'caryabhuta ’ and when there is not enough
* Viadagdhya ’ in the poet’s Vak, the repetition is intolerable.
As a matter of fact, many Alankaras have lost their force
and charm by the one reason of repetition. We do not simply
say, even in talks, one is named so, but only ^ ^ ;

so much so, there is almost no effect produced when a poet
says etc.

The inferior poets had ample Vyutpatti, unlit by imagi-
nation. As they were great scholars, we can rarely find a

70 SOME CONCEPTS OP ALANKiRA S'iSTRA

technical flaw in their figures as figures. But the place
where they abused is the same.‘ It is their scholarship that
bound them to the rule. When they got an imagery on
their mind, they settled down to turn it into one of the
Upamagarbhalankaras of the texts; they chose one that they
had not used up to that time ; in their construction, they
adopted the same manner of expression of that figure as given
in the text-book and when there was no ‘ Lingavacana samya *
for the Upama, they artificially worked out by redistributions
with the great control over lexicon and grammar they had,
the conforming form of the figure. Things that are in pairs
were often brought into singular number as occasion needed,
and to coincide with a feminine stem, ‘ Padadvaya ’ would «
become ‘ Padadvayi. ’ Even Kalidasa strains to achieve this
formal correspondence. He takes the bees in a group in
feminine gender to bear comparison with a lady, a single
and feminine Upameya.

— R. V., VI, 69.

Let us turn to Ramayana where this weight of Lingavacana
samya does not hang on the poet :

0

— Ramayana, Kiskindha, 28, 58,
— Ramacandra, Nalavilasa nataka, Act

vi, p. 77. Gaek. edn.

* See also 5t»nrr t

gMwgir II

— Kumara sambhava, 1.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKiRA IN SANSKRIT 71

'HR

II— Kis., I, 10.

61.

A latter-day poet would have certainly stopped to abide by an
Alahkarika dictum and by some ‘ Pistapesana * and * Klista
Kalpana * spoil the simple beauty of the idea presented by
Valmiki. Dandin says that there are cases where neither
Lihga-disagreement nor Vacana-disagreement can spoil the
beauty of an Upama; the Sahrdaya’s sense is the judge ; if
it is not disturbed, all is right with the figure :

^ ^ 1

RM tT II

— Dandin, K.A., II, 51 — 3.

The following verse also is beautiful, despite linga-vacana-
vyatyasa :

P!T: 1 1

Coming to the manner of expressing the similarity :
Dandin and others have given some words expressing simi-
larity, Sadrs'yaviicaka s'abdas. But ingenuity and eccentricity
have invented other expressions to convey similarity* S'riharsa
employs these words of comparison — I
Nai., IV, 8. We have other new and original words to
suggest similarity —

72

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'aSTRA

etc/ These words are in themselves condensed
metaphors and it is only after long Rudhi that they mean
simply ‘ similarity Till then the reader has to pass through
another metaphor to understand the main imagery. While it
must be accepted that it is highly diverting to have ever such
novel words of comparison, one cannot blind oneself to the
growing Aprasiddhi, involvedness and obscurity.

Considering the way in which figures are expressed : Even
very appropriate images are abused by strained expression,
resorted to with special effort, for the sake of variety as well
as metrical needs. If the poet gets a simile and gives it
natural expression which is in harmony with Rasa, there is
really effect and beauty in its employment. Poetry is after
all not an argument to be somehow read and understood;
it is something like a Manjari, as Bana says. It has to leap
to our heart on even the mere hearing of it. Even as their
ideas, their expression also has to be beautiful.

^ m II

— R.V., VIII, 45.

The second half here containing the figure is expressed in a
way that it is fit only to be in Tarka book. Like certain
words, only certain constructions are poetic. Such expressions
of Kalidasa himself — ‘ ’ (R.V., III) and

(S'ak.) are not

happy at all. S'riharsa often lapses into such wooden

^ The Lalitastavaratna of Durvasas and the Mukapaficas'ati use
such expressions profusely but one does not dislike them in these
two masterly hymns. See also AryastavarSja of a Tanjore Jagan-
natha (Vani Vilas edn.), another production in imitation of Durva-
sas’s Lalitastavaratna.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 73

expressions and his Kavya contains many sentences not more
poetic than his ‘ ’ Nai., II, 105.

Next in importance to the simile are Rupaka and Ati-
s'ayokti. ‘ Simile is used when there is a moderate degree of
excitation. When this is great, the mind naturally flies to the
metaphor as a more concentrated form of expression, represent-
ing many thoughts in a few words.’ When the emotion is
still greater, we resort to Atis'ayokti and even Atyukti. ‘ These
metaphors play an important part in the economy of language,
the coining of metaphors being a means to our stock of names.’
Poets create the language of a people. ‘ The element of re-
presentation, creation on the basis of similarity, is an essential
principle of all art and it is a factor in the construction of
language itself.’ Thus is language a book of faded metaphors.

‘Just as in the preponderance of the didactic and ex-
planatory tendency, considerations of thought overbalance
those of form, those of form overbalance those of thought in
the preponderance of the ornate tendency in which there is
failure because of an excess of representation. It is simply
natural for one who has obtained facility in illustrating his
ideas to overdo the matter at times and to carry his art so far
as to illustrate that which has been sufficiently illustrated or
is itself illustrative.’ As Ananda and Abhinava say, ‘ Ati-
nirvaha ’ is bad. It is not proper to work out in the following
manner Rupakas fully and often, especially in a situation like
this full of Karunarasa :

74

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

jpn^iTiWW: n

— Ram., Ayo., 59.

This is all the more inappropriate since it is not Kavivakya
but a Patravakya, words of the dying Das'aratha.^ A similar
artificial verse is found in Sugriva’s lament over the fallen body
of his elder brother :

— Kis., 24, 17,

The passion for figures makes a poet introduce them in such
irrelevant places. As'vathaman, in deep grief at his father’s
death, is made to utter such a complicated expression of his
sentiment :

And in Act I, Bhatta Narayana makes Bhima say :

*1^ ^fT I

Poetry, being intended for the delight of the imagination,
must be effective only through hint and suggestion ; and when

* The author of the Imagery of Ramayana (J.O.R., Madras,
referred to above) characterises such instances as ‘ Symmetry-
figures those worked out for symmetry alone. The giving of a
name to them does not take away their artificiality.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 75

one makes it a bit of grammar or logic, it ceases to be poetry.
It is really surprising how there can be any beauty of figure in
such an unpoetic expression as Parisarhkhya which can never
be a spontaneous utterance. The following Parisarhkhya is a
description of the rain season in the Ramayana :

I

— Kis., 18. 27.

It is proper that Kuntaka should reject this * Alankara \

From mere Rupaka, the poet’s first move in the world of
the image itself produces the Parinamalankara, which is
Rupaka with “Prakrtopayogitva. This figure has been abused
very much. The poet moves on only in the world of imagery^
carried away by suggestions of further images from the details
of the first imagery. He does not beautify or illustrate the
main idea which he has now forgotten.

— Sahrdayananda, L

The first figure Rupaka suggests a Parinama and that is further
taken up to a Virodha and the last metaphor here —

— is wholly inappropriate as applied to the faces of enemies.
Such verses often become ununderstandable like puzzles,
three or four ideas intervening between the understanding
and the Rasa. Mahima says :

m ... .

—V. V., I, T.S.S., pp. 17-18.

76

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

The same is the case with Paryayokta,* Preyan and
Rasavadalahkaras. The king or God is to be praised ; Priti
for them is the main Rasa of the subject, but a minor Rasa is
employed to adorn the main one. A far-fetched idea suggest-
ing some great quality of the king or God (which quality is
left to hide itself in one small word) is elaborated and the
whole verse is burdened with a new picture which is a world by
itself. The verse

etc. quoted by Appayya diksita in his Citramimamsa as an
illustration of Uttarottarapallavitabhranti aptly shows how
poets stray away from the main idea. This tendency is the
main feature of the vast mass of court eulogies like the Prata-
parudrlya (the Alahkara work), Pranabharana, Rajendra-
karnapura etc. When Kalidasa writes thus :

we have the main idea of the king incessantly doing sacrifices
given adequate expression, but if we take a verse from the
Prataparudriya praising the king, we can see the poet rolling
in the world of images themselves with little reference to the
king’s qualities. Sometimes it seems that court-poetry will
praise and pun and work conceits upon Ganga, Ksirodadhi
and Candra themselves to the exclusion of what they are
taken to represent, viz. the king’s white fame.

Coming to Utpreksa, we already saw one instance of a
bad Utpreksa from the Ramayana Campu,

^tc., where the poet has gone contrary to the main theme.
This figure especially shall always be closely connected with
the main theme and Rasa.

^ Vide above, criticism of etc.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKARA IN SANSKRIT 77

— R. V., XIV, 51.

Here is an appropriate Utpreksa, one in perfect consonance
with the sentiment ; Kalidasa has heightened the Rasa by it.
But ingenuity and eccentricity formed the endowments of
many poets who made conceits far-fetched and irrelevant.
Not to mention pleasure, even intellectual satisfaction is
not produced by many Utpreksas of S'rlharsa. The Rasa
is obscured to a single word. As with hyperbole, so with
conceits: the departure from truth must not be shocking.
Bain says : ‘ Tiresome to us at least is the straining of this
figure in Eastern Poetry He says this of hyperbole and it
is true also of conceit. It is mistaken taste and scholarship
that revels in these far-fetched figures.

f^T ^ II

— Dandin, K. A., 1.

Another figure with which Sanskrit composition is
cheaply associated is S'lesa. As Keith points out, the lexicons
and the Nanarthavargas did a very bad service in this con-
nection. It became impossible for a latter-day scholar to
write except in double entendre and if we take a work like
Vedantadesrika’s Subhasitanivi, we can rarely find there a
verse which has not got two meanings. Sometimes we are
able to set up similarity between both the ideas and some-
times we are left to satisfy ourselves with the mere pleasure
of originality and admire the author’s command over the
language. Often the puns revolve round silly and trivial

78 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

attributes. There are also cases of discord of varying nature
between the two ideas : the idea on hand, the Prakaranika,
is Adhika, the other, Nyuna ; the former noble, the latter,
base. The author of the Sahrdayananda makes a pun upon
such a trifle of an attribute as the owl having wings. It was the
boast of authors that they could pun at every step ; it was the
banner of their talents. Subandhu beats his own Pataha thus :

m : ll

So much so that it became not only a possibility or ac-
complished fact but a practice of great fancy to produce
■double, triple, and quadruple poems.*

But what exactly is the place of this figure ? Has it any
charm to impart to the diction ? It does help Alankara, all
Alankaras except Svabhavokti :

1— Dandin.

Abhinava also points out that it helps Upamagarbha figures.
Used with restraint, it can be charming and effective. The
two meanings must be well known ; the figure must have
come off easily. Bana says ; 1 Harsacarita. • The

following are two instances of simple and beautiful S'lesa,
used with an eye to increase the effect of the situation :

II

— Ram., Ayo., 41. 12.

' See my article ‘ Anekasandhana kavyas ’ in the Annals of the
Oriental Research Institute, University of Madras, Vol. III. pt. 1.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKXRA IN SANSKRIT 79

m 1

— Ram., Kis., 27. 42.

Kalidasa, who rarely resorts to this figure, gives a similar
simple S'lesa in his R. V., Ill :

fqqoit 39% ?T \\

In Bana, we meet with both uses and abuses of this figure.
As in his life, so in his writings, Bana was exuberant and was
responsible for excess. He often forgot proportion and in
Utpreksa, he became endless sometimes, as in that long
and tiring description of the king’s elephant, Darpas'ata, in
tJcchvasa II of the Harsacarita. He could deal in pointless
S'lesas like ^ He was a master of S'abda-

bhangasdesa, in which the words have to be differently split
for the two meanings. This Bhangasdesa is denounced by
foreigners ; but those who have complete acquaintance and
are familiar with all the nooks and corners of a language can
understand a Bhangasdesa very easily. S'lesa in general is
very eflfective in gnomic utterances where they help to nail
the maxim into our head ; they are equally catching in Catus
or eulogies. In Catus, the Bhangasdesa also is freely
employed and in the following Catu, Bhangasdesa is certainly
very striking :

When overdone or when handled by lesser artists, the
Padabhahgas'lesa can become one of the obstacles to

80 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'iSTRA

understanding and realization of Rasa. Anandavardhana
classes it along with the Duskaras, the Yamaha, the Bandhas
etc. which have to be avoided during the delineation of Rasas
like S'rhgara, Vipralambha and Karuna.

I — Dhva. A., p. 85.

As compared with this Bhahgas'lesa of S'abda, Arthas'lesa
is less of an impediment to Rasa ; used discriminately, it can
help Rasa even. Says Abhinava :

I ^ qsn 1

153 5S;, 3 1 1

Locana, p. 85*

The next prominent figure which had found a place
in the Ramayana and had become monotonous in later poets
is the Samasokti. Poets see the world shaped in beauty*
To them there is music in the spheres. Words in the
feminine gender fascinates them.

tisiT ^ ‘ ^ riR

— Locana, p. 160.

3^3, 31^ II

— Vakroktijivita, 93.

This employment of Samadhiguna ‘ with which poets, as with
magic, give life and motion (emotion ?) to every inanimate
part of nature ’ is praised by Dan^in as ‘ Kavya sarvasva.’

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 81

?f*TTf^5rfjT qt jpi: |

n— k. a., i.

Samadhiguna produces the Samasokti figure. Valmiki has two
beautiful verses of this class, in the former of which elements
of Samasokti go to beautify the main figure of Upama.

^ ^ II — Aranya, 16. 8.

II

" — Kiskindha, 30. 46.

There are some very fine verses of this type in Canto XI of
the S'is'upalavadha where Magha gives us a description of
dawn. But soon, poets with neither originality nor restraint,
began to repeat images ; the same three or four objects, the
sun, the moon, the PadminI, the KairavinI, the Praci and the
Pratici diks were exploited for many verses together, the
points of attraction dwindling to trifles, and with variety
almost non-existent. Gradually this figure became intellectual
and njo wonder, it begot the new subvariety called S'astra-
samasokti.

In Sanskrit Literature, there are some strange metaphors
at which some English critics evince surprise. As for
instance, we never have simple Asi (sword), but have only
Among our own critics, Ksemendra has said — in his
Aucityavicaracarca — that such a delightful object as moon
ought not to be conceived as Citacakra. Things repellent
and terrible by [themselves must never be conceived in
images of charm and love. But while describing the death

82

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'ASTRA

of enemies, their sufferings etc., the poet does employ such
imagery, sometimes in callousness and sometimes in the light
vein. The falling warriors are said to embrace Earth ; and
Kalidasa describes Tataka passing away into Death’s abode
as going to her lover.

S'astrasamasokti has given rise to sheer pedantry. In
an age of poetry when poets were scholars with Vyut-
patti in all the Dars'anas and branches of learning,
nothing could satisfy the writer or reader but high-flown
rapprochement with S'astraic ideas. Vis'akhadatta’s claim
for dramatic genius will hardly become less if he had not
written etc. The

Naisadhakara’s own Dindima is on this point —
g i FNcf if ^ fq aii the Dars'anas and the subt-

leties thereof find a place in his poem. See the Tarka here :

^ JT IV.

Naisadha. Surely, poetry must give Upades'a ; the sublime
thoughts, the deep philosophies — all these the poet must give
expressioa to ; but this S'astrasamasokti is harldly that.

The last Alankara that we shall consider here specially is
that variety of Aprastutapras'amsa or Anyokti called Anya-
pades'a. If poetry is a criticism of life, Anyapades'a is poetry
above all other types. In it, the poet points out the flaws and
failings of men, praises their nobility, bitingly remarks about
men’s meanness, and makes fun of and satirises every aspect of
human character. Bhatta Bhallata’s century of Anyapades'a
has some very fine verses. Nilakantha dTksita’s Anyapades'a
is unequalled in this branch. In the anthologies, there are
some brilliant Anyapades'a verses. Most of the other Anya-
pades'a centuries are trash. A few objects like the sea, the sun,
the moon, the lotus, the Kokila and the mango in contrast with
the crow and the Margosa, the rains and the frogs — these

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKARA IN SANSKRIT 83

trite things in some stale ideas were exploited for a hundred
and more verses. The poet did not pick out any particular,
subtle or prominent defect of humanity to criticize, or good
quality to praise. Not feeling anything to write a verse with
•life, these poets dashed off verse after verse, retailing one
triviality after another. Anyapades'a is a type of literature
that can never be written at a sitting, by As'ukavis, but must
be written on occasions, must be made to accumulate into a
collection in the course of the varied life of a poet, full with
experience. If Bhallata wrote the verse on the ignoble Dust,
which, by the kicking up of the fickle wind, got on the very
tops of the mountains — ^ ^

etc., we know Bhallata felt the poignant grief ; we
know from the Rajatarangini that in the reign of the mean
and wicked S'afikaravarman (a.D. 882 — 902), great men like
poet Bhallata had to earn their livelihood by doing all sorts of
services, that poets were not given gifts and that peons drew
fabulous salaries, holding high authority.'

But small minds — never thought
themselves ‘ krtartha ’ if they had not finished off in their
literary career a century of Anyapades'a and immediately
they made a ‘ Parikarabandha ’ and began exploiting the sun
and the moon, the etc.

' Kalhana, R.T., V, 204, etc.

II

5r?IT^Tl5^ II

See also my article on the Bhallata S'ataka in the Annals of the
Venkatesvara Oriental Institute, Tirupati, Vol. I. No. 1.

84 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'iSTRA

We have thus far considered figures of sense. Poetry, as it
is required to be sensuous, must be pleasing to the ear also.
The form of the form itself must be beautiful, must have a
music and flow. The poet must look to harmony, balance,^
and climax in his sentences. Metre itself owes its origin to
this requirement as also to the emotional outburst. Keith
grants that the Sanskrit poets have ‘ certainly a better ear
than themselves (foreigners) to the music of the words’, — the
appropriateness of sound to suggest the meaning and senti-
ment. What a verse did Bhavabhuti write !

It is really a marvel of sound effect that Bana produces with
utmost ease :

’ Harsacarita, I.

rTSrt I ^—Ibid., III.

One cannot pick out in Bana ; the reader with keen sensibility
hears the metallic sound of Airavata striking its tusk on a
golden pavement, sees the rolling clouds, sees the current
stumbling and rushing out of each of the three blocking
words, Grava, Graha, Grama; and in the stillness of his mind,
he feels the long-drawn silvery voice of female swans, in the
ponds on the outskirts of the city, slowly dying. Colour,

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 85

smell, sound and touch we are able to directly realize in
Kalidasa’s verse :

fjRtW ^ RT^JTNTf^R: 11

Note especially the onomatopoeic effect of the sibilant
* S' doubled by the Sandhi, in the expression ‘ S'ipravatah \
When Kalidasa said of Aja, ^ \ we see how Aja

briskly rose up from his bed, unlike the slothful and sleepy ;
and the sternness of Nandin’s command to the Ganas not to
give way to Capala, rings in our own ears when we read —

|— K.S., III.

Bhavabhuti was as great a master with the words ; surely the
delicate and charming effects are easy of achievement for him
when they are needed ; but he discovered the sound effects
required for the Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas ; what he created,
others still live upon. In the S'mas'anahka ot the Malatl-
madhava, he makes one’s flesh creep, hairs stand on end, and
feet step back in fright. The owl, the jackal, the water of
the river rushing through skeletons, — eeriness gathers round
when we read

11— M.M.

86 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'ASTRA

Take that verse again in his Mahaviracarita which brings on
Tataka, the demoness —

etc.’

The concepts of Riti and Vrtti in poetics owe their for-
mulation to a study of these sound-effects. These also count
for Rasa. It is said that the first gait of the actor on the stage
interprets him and his character to the audience ; that first
impression stands to the last. So also the first effect a verse
on its mere reading or hearing produces, holds the mind to the
end. For the Rasa to be suggested, even the jingle in the
sounds or the clash of words is welcome and appropriate
means.

A further carrying out of these ideas gives rise to the
S'abdalankara of Anuprasa of different varieties. But Yamakas,
as Dandin says, are not good — They have
least to do with Rasa. Anandavardhana lays down the follow
ing rules for the use of Anuprasa and Yamaka :

II

11

— Dhva. A., p. 85; Kar. 15-16.

In such Rasas as S'rngara and Karuna, the elaborate and
artificial figures of sound have no place. Valmiki has shown
that in a mere description, rhymes find a proper place. The
famous description of the moonlight night in the Sundarakantja
^ ^ etc.’ is an example. There is a particular

* Vide below chapter on Aucitya. Also Dhva. A., III.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 87

tendency in the Ramayana, which is seen even in the Rgveda,
to juxtapose similar sound groups, an effect which Kali-
dasa and As'vaghosa adopted from the master. Valmiki
writes— ‘ qi?Tr

etc. These do not do violence to the sense and
at the same time add to the charm of the diction. Kalidasa
in his Raghuvams'a especially delights in such innocent
assonances :

II — R.V., I.

— R.V., V.

etc. R.V., II.

C/. S'rlharsa, Naisadha, VI, 1.

5ff^: %t I

Yamaka differs in that it needs special effort and drags
the poet away from his Samadhi in Rasa. Not only that :
However much, like a latter-day adept at this Yamaka-craft,
a poet may get it easily, it is bad and improper in so far as it
distracts and stops our minds from proceeding beyond itself,
our minds which must reach the ‘ Rasa ' obscured in the inner
sanctum. (See Dhva. A., p. 85). In the ninth canto of the
Raghus^ams'a however, the theme is only a description of
summer and the hunt of the king. In such places, Ananda
allows option in using the Yamaka. But there are descrip-
tions both by Valmiki and Kalidasa which do not employ

88

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAliKiRA S'iSTRA

sound-figures and link every descriptive detail with the context.
For example, the Vasanta-description opening the Kiskindha-
kanda and the S'arad-description in Canto IV of the Raghu-
vams'a. The canonists permit the Yamaka-mad and Duskara-
mad poets to satisfy themselves in situations of Rasabhasa.
The Bandhas of various types, Ekaksara, Nirosthya — these
have nothing to do with poetry. It is regrettable that after
Bharavi and Magha, these became part of the definition of
Mahakavya.

A bad ideal for prose was deduced by the latter-day poets
from Bana and from such remarks as

etc. Without endless com-
pounds and jingle of sounds, no prose was possible after a time.
So much so that as time passed, certain word groups were
effected, one word in which would not occur without the
other. would not come out without and the sound

of ^3^; will always be introduced as ^ \ All the

rivers looked ^ ^ In ideas and words, a stock

diction had grown and poesy became a mechanical craft. In
his book on Poetic Diction, Thomas Quayle says of the 18th
century poetry in England : ‘ And the same lack of direct
observation and individual expression is obvious whenever the

classicists have to mention birds or animals

. . . . And it has been well remarked that if we are to

judge from their verse, most of the poets of the first quarter
of the eighteenth century knew no bird except the gold finch
or nightingale and even these probably only by hearsay. For
the same generalised diction is usually called upon and birds
are merely a “ feathered “ tuneful ”, “ plumy ” or “ warb-
ling ” choir . . . ’. How true these remarks are of our

Sanskrit poets who produced Mahakavyas at the shortest notice,
who could describe the Himalayas and the Ganges and the

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKiRA IN SANSKRIT 89

ocean without seeing them and at whose command there were
Kos'as and stock expressions and stock ideas, white fame of
the king like the autumnal moonlight, the blazing sun of
his prowess, the Vasanta, the Malaya maruta, the
and so on. To this race of poets apply these lines of
Keats :

Beauty was awake !

Why were ye not awake ? But ye were dead
To things ye knew not of, — were closely wed
To musty laws lined out with wretched rule
And compass vile ; so that ye taught a school
Of dolts to smooth, inlay, and clip, and fit.

Till, lik^ the certain wands of Jacob’s wit,

Their verses tallied. Easy was the task :

A thousand handicraftsmen wore the mask
Of Poesy.

— Sleep and Poetry.

To conclude, poetry is neither pure emotion and thought
nor mere manner. A beautiful idea must appropriately in-
carnate itself in a beautiful expression. This defines Alankara
and its place and function. The function of Alankara is to
heighten the effect ; it is to aid the poet to say more pointedly.
Whether the poet exalts or does the opposite, Alankara is to
help him. Says Mahimabhatta :

— V.V., T.S.S., p. 53.

As such, these Alankaras should flow out of Rasa. Even as
emotion is depicted, these must come off, without the poet
consciously striving after them. They must be ‘ irremovable

90 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'iSTRA

structural, organic : Rasaksipta, Aprthag yatna nirvartya.
These words of Mahimabhatta are pertinent here :

^ H II ‘

V.V., II., T.S.S., p. 87.

Figures are thus legitimate, though a proper use of them
is a gift which only the greater among the poets are endowed
with. Be it a S'abda-alahkara or an Artha-alahkara, be it a
sound-effect or a striking turn of the idea, it is not * Bahi-
rahga ' for Rasa, so long as it is useful for Rasa. Effective
expression, the embodiment of the poet’s idea, is Alahkara.
It is not as if it were in some separate place, like jewels in a
box, to be taken and added. As has been explained in the
opening part of this chapter, it is the several ways of expressing
ideas which are to convey the Rasa that are called Alahkaras.

qTg[%«r 51^;, 5IT=5qfil^qT |

— Ananda, p. 87.

— Mahima., p. 87.

‘ Vide also the Antara S'lokas 76-77 on p. 87, V.V. There
are very valuable ideas on AlaAkara-aucitya in Vimars^a Two of
the Vyaktiviveka.

USE AND ABUSE OF ALANKaRA IN SANSKRIT 91

From Rasa to the musical sound which aids its realisation,,
poetry is one unity, one complex of rich experience.

The purposiveness of Alahkara is inevitable like the pur-
posiveness of poetry. But this does not mean that one
should judge Alahkara and poetry from a purely utilitarian
point of view. There is simply beautiful poetry, which is
nothing but the poet’s desire to express taken shape. ‘ These
very decorations carry the emotional motive of the poet which
says “I find joy in my creations ; itisgood”.’^ ‘ When in
some pure moments of ecstasy we realise this in the world
around us, we see the w'orld not as merely existing but as
decorated in its forms, sounds, colours, and lines, we feel in
our hearts that there is one w^ho through all things proclaims
“ I have joy in my creation ‘ Nature is the creation of
God’s Lila, Poetry, of the poet’s Lila.

‘ Tagore.

THE HISTORY OF SVABHAVOKTI IN SANSKRIT

POETICS

ii

— Dhanapala's Tilakamanjarlf p. 130.

It is a proper emphasis on both the content, Emotion
and Thought, and the form, the Poetic Expression,^ that is
contained in the dictum of the Sanskrit critics that poetry is
Ukti pradhana or Abhidha pradhana. As Tauta says in the
well-known passage quoted by Hemacandra (K.A., p. 316),
one may have the vision, Dars'ana, and be only a seer, Rsi,
but he becomes a poet, Kavi, only when he renders that vision
into beautiful language, Varnana. The poetic expression is,
generally speaking, heightened or made striking by an out-of-
the-way-ness, which is called Vakrokti or Alahkara. This
figurative strikingness is pervasive of the whole range of the
form and helps to detect poetry. When the figurative devi-
ation from the ordinary mode of speaking is scrutinized, it is
found that, in some cases, the deviation is more than in other
cases. Indeed, there are cases which do not show any deter-
minable and definable deviation, cases which we call ‘ natural
description’. Such ‘natural description’, when it is of an"
emotional situation is called a case of Rasa, or Rasa-ukti
according to Bhoja ; and when it is of anything else or of an

‘ Says Oscar Wilde in his Picture of Dorian Gray, p. 159 :

‘ For, canons of good society are, or should be, the same
as canons of art. Form is absolutely essential to it.

HISTORY OF SVABHIVOKTI

93

object of Nature, it is called Svabhavokti. To a survey of the

history of this concept, Svabhavokti, is this chapter devoted.

We first catch sight of Svabhavokti in the introductory
<0

verses in Bana’s Harsacarita :

11

Jati is the old name of Svabhavokti. Bana says that Jati or
Svabhavokti must not be Gramya, ordinary, vulgar, insipid or
stale. Jati is the statement of things as they are. That is
what the ordinary speaker and writer make ; poverty of poetic
power, absence of a wizard-force with words, a sense of bare
necessity, parsimony in expression, a sense of sufficiency, an
anxiety to state the bare truth with absolute fidelity to facts —
these produce a kind of expression which is a bare statement
of things as they are. Ordinary talk, legal expressions, and
scientific writings are examples. These two, ordinary bald
talk and the technical jargon of science, Laukika and S'astrlya
expressions, are both excluded from the scope of Jati. Jati is
a poet’s statement of the natural state of things. Hence does
Bana say that Jati has to be Agramya.^

Vidyanatha qualifies Svabhavokti by the word Caru :

And Kumarasvamin explains that Caru means Agramya : only a
beautiful statement of things as they are, is Svabhavokti :

^ I . . . JURf JiRSfR: i

Pra. rud. Bala m. Edn., p. 297.

This Carutva and Agramyata are involved in the very conception
of the Svabhavokti Alankara and hence, Kuntaka’s fear that the
cart-driver*s talk also will become Svabhavokti is unfounded.

\ V.J. I, p. 24.

94

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

How this ‘ natural description ’ came to be called Jati is
a question worth investigating. Perhaps J ati refers to its origin
from the root ‘ Jan ’ and means the presence or presentation
of things as they arise or are. Or Jati refers to the general
characteristics that go to mark out a thing or a class of things.'
Objects like trees, birds and deer are described, delineating
graphically the attributes and actions of their class. This
would form a description of Jati and perhaps this was the
earliest variety of natural description to be recognized and
christened, among Alahkaras. As a matter of fact, we find
Dandin giving four classes of Svabhavokti, — Jati, Dravya,
Guna and Kriya. .It is reasonable to believe that the first and
earliest variety, Jati, was extended as name to the rest also.
Says Dandin :

I n. 8.

II II. 13.

And he illustrates Jati-svabhavokti by a description of the class-
attributes of the species of birds called parrots :

^ gqST; l| II. 9.

We miss the word Jati in Bhamaha but not the concept
of ‘ natural description ’. In the introductory paragraph, it
was pointed out that the proper cloak of poetic idea is a
stricking form, emphatic by virtue of its heightened nature;
but that within its realm, there are varying degrees of striking-

* Compare the discu^ion in S'astras about Jati as a Padartha,
along with Vyakti and Akrti. The view that ‘Jati ’ is Padartha
was held by Vajapyayana and also by the Mimamsakas.

HISTORY OF SVABHaVOKTI

95

ness and deviations from the normal mode of expression ; and
that, comparatively speaking, there are cases in which such
deviation is least and which, as a consequence, are called
Svabhava-ukti, ‘ natural expression Now, Bhamaha pro-
ceeded with his treatment of poetry thus : Flaws must be
avoided in expression and though a flawless piece by itself may
be lovely, because of its natural beauty, yet embellishments
beautify it, as ornaments beautify even the naturally lovely
face of a woman.

ii 1. 13.

When Bhamaha says thus that a lovely face does not shine
without ornaments, he seems to contradict himself. The con-
clusion we can draw from this verse is that though Bhamaha
emphasizes ornament very much, he is aware of a beauty
which is natural to a piece of poetry, and which is not born
of ornament. This ornament or Alahkara is a certain striking
deviation in expression for Bhamaha. When no such striking
deviation is recognizable, the expression is no Alahkara. This
is clear when Bhamaha refutes Hetu, Suksma and Les'a as
Alahkaras, since, according to him, the expression as a whole
in these* cases does not show any Vakrokti.

II II. 86.

^ Rudrata made such an analysis of figures and his first class
of Alahkaras forming the Vastava group involves the least figurative
Vaicitrya. Of the many in this group, the Vastava figure par
^excellence, as Namisadhu specially points out, is Jati. And it is
because Jati concerns itself directly with the thing as it is, without
any great s'abda vaicitrya, that Bhoja counts J ati as an Arthalah-
Jcara and that, the first.

96

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'aSTRA

If this Vakratva is not to be found, the expression is mere
‘ news’, mere information-giving ; it is Varta. Following the
above quoted verse, Bhamaha says :

qWN |

ii ii. 87.

The first line here is an instance of an utterance which as a
whole, Samudaya abhidhana, is bereft of any Vakrokti ; and
this is what is called Varta, news. Thus as against poetry^
there is set this Varta, which may be insipid Loka Varta or
technical S'astra Varta. Varta, however, differs from Jati or
Svabhavokti; for Varta is, to adopt Bana’s language, Gramya
Jatih. Thus, we have ordinary expression which is Varta;
then natural poetic expression called Jati or Svabhavokti and
then Vakrokti.

If these meanings are not settled thus, there will arise a
loose use of Varta or Jati. Da^din uses the word Svabhavokti
or Jati loosely when he says: he refers

here to Varta only. Similarly Varta also has been loosely
used as a synonym of Jati. Just after Atisayokti, Yathasam-
khya and Utpreksa, we find Bhatti illustrating a figure called
Varta, by a verse describing the mountain Mahendra.

X. 45.

This shows that Varta is meant as a synonym of Jati or Sva-
bhavokti and that in the pre-Bhamaha literature, Svabhavokti
was recognized by some, some called it Svabhavokti, others
Jati and still others Varta. Bhatti must be taken to call it

HISTORY OF SVABHAVOKTI

97

Varta. The Visnudharmottara, in its small section on Alah-
kara, calls it Varta :

In Bhamaha, we find Varta used separately from Svabhavokti;
he restricts Varta to non-poetic utterances in which there is no
Vakrokti. Dandin does not mention the word Varta, (amidst
Alaiikaras) but uses the words Jati and Svabhavokti as synonyms.

The Jayamangala ^ on Bhatti has an original explanation
t© offer on Varta, not found elsewhere. It says:

?TT I —

II

(Bhamaha, II, 93.)

|

II ^

Under X, 46, N.S. Edn.

In’ Bhatti, the word Svabhavokti is absent. There is
only Varta, which is illustrated by a natural description of a

* There is a good amount of difference between the Jayamangala
and Mallinatha *s gloss on Bhatti on the question, which Alankara
is illustrated in which verse by Bhatti. 3?^ etc. X, 42 or 43

is an illustration of Svabhavokti for Mallinatha and of Atis'ayokti
(what a difference !) for the Jayamangala. If the Jayamangala
sees Varta in X. 45 or 46, Mallinatha sees Atis'ayokti there. In
the case of some verses, Mallinatha does not point out any figure.
And this difference between the commentators on Bhatti does
not seem to have been pointed out by scholars.

7

98

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'iSTRA

mountain. From this we concluded that Bhatti must be
understood to hold according to writers whom Bhamaha did
not follow, that Varta was synonymous with Jati and Svabha-
vokti. But the Jayamahgala is a close follower of Bhamaha
whose text alone it quotes. It explains Bhatti by Bhamaha
and naturally there is some difficult 3 \ The Jayamahgala
starts with two definite ideas : (1) that Bhamaha accepts an
Alahkara called Svabhavokti and (2) that the verse on Varta is
a verse on an Alahkara called Varta, with an illustration in
the first line. Hence, the Jayamahgala reads the verse on
Varta differently :

for

Having started with these two ideas, the Jayamahgala
has to indicate the difference between Varta and Svabhavokti.
It says ingeniously that there is one major Alahkara called
Varta which is the stating of things in strict accordance to their
natural state and that it has tw^o subdivisions, Vis'ista and
Nirvis'ista. The Vis'ista Varta is called Svabhavokti and the
Nirvis'ista varta is simply Varta. Bhatti’s verse is an illustra-
tion of the former. From the Jayamahgala's remarks, we see
that by ‘ Vis'ista ’, it means the description of one particular
object with its attributes, and by ‘ Nirvis'ista the description
of a composite view of Nature ; the former is illustrated by
Bhatti’s description of Mt. Mahendra with its attributes, and
the latter by ‘iT^35FcW#i: etc.’ ‘

* Dr. S. K. De says (Skr. Poe., I, p. 53) that Bhatti does not
recognize Svabhavokti. We do not know that, for as Dr. De
himself points out (p. 52), the Jayamahgala is the guide to
know what Bhatti recognized and illustrated. According to

HISTORY OF SVABHaVOKTI

99

But Bhamaha kept Varta and Svabhavokti separate. The
latter, he refers to as an Alankara and illustrates. The former,
he refers to with derision, as a name for insipid detailing of
some facts, for expressions devoid of striking deviation.
Closely following, as it does, his rejection of Hetu, Suksma
and Les'a which do not show any Vakratva, the verse does
not seem to yield itself to the different reading and conse-
quent different meaning which the Jayamahgala gives it.
That the verse mentioning Hetu, Suksma and Les'a and the
next verse speaking of ^ ^ etc.’ as mere Varta, go

together is proved by a reference to Dandin where Bhamaha,
II, 86-87 are taken together. Dandin, in the Hetucakra,
speaks of etc.’ as Jhapaka Hetu Alankara and

considers it as * U ttamabhusana ’ as if to spite him who referred
to Hetu together with Suksma and Les'a as no Alankara at all. ^
Thus I am of opinion that the word Varta in Bhamaha
is no name of an Alankara. Dr. De is of opinion that there
is an Alankara called Varta which Bhamaha mentions and
rejects in the passage discussed above. On p. 36 of Vol. II
of his Poetics, he says that in the second stage of the develop-
ment of Alahkaras was added ‘ a seventh figure Varta w’hich is
referred to by Dandin in I. 85 but which is not accepted by
Bhamaha’. On p. 109, ibid,, he says: ‘With Bhamaha, he
(Dandin) alludes to Varta (1. 85) which is illustrated by
Bhafti, but which disappears from later poetics, being included
perhaps in the scope of Svabhavokti . Mr. P. V. Kane also
opines that in the passage discussed above, an Alankara called

Mallinatha, X, 42 (or 43) 31^ etc. is Bhatti’s illustration of

Svabhavokti ; and in X, 45 (or 46) where the Jayamangala sees
Varta, Mallinatha sees Atis'ayokti 1

‘ From this we have to infer that some predecessor of Bha-
maha whom Bhamaha criticises but whom Dandin follows, gave the
instance etc. and held it as an Alankara called Hetu.

100

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'aSTRA

Varta is rejected by Bhamaha. Such a view does not seem to be
tenable. The Jayamahgala which speaks of a Vartalahkara has
a curious reading for the second line of Bhamaha’s verse. This
reading itself does not agree with the context in Bhamaha. If
Bhamaha is refuting an Alahkara of some predecessor called
Varta in that verse, the verse must have been written otherwise.
As it is, it must be taken as closely connected with the previous
verse refuting Hetu, Suksma and Les'a and must be taken to
give an instance of an ‘ Abhidhana samudaya an expression
as a whole, which has no Vakrokti (Vakroktyanabhidhana) ;
and hence a case of no Kavya but only

a bald communication of facts 51^85^). It is clear

that in Bhamaha, Varta is not used as the name of an Alahkara.
Nor has Varta the Alahkara anything to do with the w^ord
Varta in Dandin, I. 85, but of which more in the section on
Dandin.

Soon, finishing a few Alahkaras, Bhamaha comes to Sva-
bhavokti :

(or |

in iTtn: II II. 93-94.

There is a discussion among scholars on the question : Did
Bhamaha accept Svabhavokti as an Alahkara ? Some say that*
the somewhat indifferent reference to it in the words

shows that Bhamaha did not accept it as an
Alahkara. As regards Bhamaha ’s attitude towards Svabha-
vokti, one Purvapaksa is completely ruled out namely that it
is not mentioned by him. Bhamaha mentions, defines and

HISTORY OF SVABHaVOKTI

101

illustrates it. In this respect, it resembles As'is, III, 55-56.
To begin with, that Bhamaha defines and illustrates Svabha-
vokti is sonje proof of his acceptance of it as a figure. The
figures which Bhamaha does not accept are not referred to
by him in such terms. If he does not accept a figure, he says
I Witness the case of Hetu, Suksma and Les'a.
The words ^ ^ is no argument for taking that

Bhamaha did not accept Svabhavokti. Many Alankaras are
introduced in these terms. These w’ords cannot serve as an
argument even for the view that Svabhavokti has a dubious
existence in Bhamaha. Dr. De sometimes speaks of Svabha-
vokti as having a dubious existence in Bhamaha though in
Vol. II of his. Poetics and in his Introduction to his edition of
the Vakrokti jivita, he views that Bhamaha does not accept
this figure. Dr. A. Sankaran opines in his Theories of Rasa
and Dhvani (p, 22) that Bhamaha does not accept this figure.
Mr. D. T. Tatacharya Siromani examines these views and
replies to them in his M.O.L. Essay on the Definition of
Poetry, published in the J.O.R., Madras. Udbhata and
Kuntaka considered Bhamaha as accepting Svabhavokti.
Udbhata has enumerated and defined Svabhavokti in the same
order and place as in Bhamaha. The ‘ancients', cirantanas,
who figure in Kuntaka’s Purvapaksa as accepting Svabhavokti,
include Bhamaha. Bhoja who digests completely Bhamaha,
Dandin and Rudrata gives Bhamaha ’s illustration of Svabha-
vokti in his treatment of that figure which shows that, accord-
ing to Bhoja, Bhamaha accepted that figure. If Kuntaka had
the slightest hint that Bhamaha did not accept this figure, he
would have reinforced his critique against Svabhavokti with a
reference to Bhamaha ’s text to that effect.

On p. 61 of Vol. II of his Poetics, Dr. De says : ‘ When
words are used in the ordinary manner of common parlance.

102

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

as people without a poetic turn of mind use them, there is no
special charm or strikingness. Such Svabhavokti or “ natural ”
mode of speech to which Dandin is so partial but which he
also distinguishes from Vakrokti, is not acceptable to Bhamaha
and Kuntaka, who refuse to acknowledge it as a poetic figure
at all.’ One cannot point out any passage in Bhamaha
which refutes Svabhavokti and it is wrong to club Bhamaha
with Kuntaka who elaborately argues against Svabhavokti,
as can be seen in a further section. And there is nothing like
partiality for Svabhavokti in Dandin. If one views Bhamaha
as being inimical to this figure, he imagines Dandin to be
overfond of it. Nor is the attribute ^ ^ applied

by Dandin to Svabhavokti a sign of his partiality for it. The
attribute only means that in the field of poetic expression
where Vakrokti rises gradually, Svabhavokti stands first or at
the bottom involving least Vakrata ; it is the starting point ;
the ground for Vakrokti to come into further play.

Mr. Tatacharya has, it seems, committed an excess while
trying to prove that Bhamaha accepted Svabhavokti. He says
that when Bhamaha said —

5% I I. 39.

he meant like Dandin to divide poetic expression into two
realms, Vakrokti and Svabhavokti; and Mr. Tatacharya puts
a forced interpretation on * Vakrasvabhavoktya ’ which does
not mean and but means only

the word Svabhava here meaning ‘ of the nature of
Consequently Mr. Tatacharya views that Bhamaha also, like
Dandin, classified Vanmaya into two classes, Svabhavokti and
Vakrokti. Mr. Tatacharya says : ‘ As is shown above, in
BhSmaha’s view, all the Alankaras other than the one

HISTORY OF SVABHiVOKTl

103

Svabhavokti, are governed by the Vakrokti principle.’ This is
Dandin’s view/ not Bhamaha’s. To Bhamaha, the absence of
Vakrata or Vakrokti eliminates an expression from the fold of
Alahkara ; it will not be Svabhavokti but Varta, — not like
etc. but like etc. For Bhamaha

Vakrokti is Alahkara, and Svabhavokti also which has got
its own degree of Vakrata marking it off from mere Varta
is comprised in Vakrokti. Dandin examined the realm of
poetic speech with greater scrutiny and said that since in
Svabhavokti, the Vakrata is least, let it stand apart. And
even to this Dandin, the expression of Rasa, Rasa-ukti,
is still part of Vakrokti, and Bhoja therefore analyzed
poetic expression into three parts, Svabhavokti, Rasokti and
Vakrokti.

Just as Bana said that a Jati should be Agramya, Dandin
says that it should bring before our eyes the picture vividly.

^ I II. 8. ‘ ’

says Tarunavacaspati, while the Hrdayarhgama which says
* ^ emphasizes that no artificial aid of a

figurative flourish shall be used here. As previously indicated,
Dandin gives four classes of Svabhavokti — Jati, Kriya, Guna
and Dravya, II. 13. Bhoja (S.K.A., III, 6-8) multiplies the
classes, — Svarupa, Samsthana, Avasthana, Vesa, Vyapara
etc. ; child, maiden, animal ; time, place etc., — elaborations
borrowed by him from Rudrata.*

* K.A., II, 362. Madras Edn.

*The anonymous gloss on the Kavyadars'a in the N.S. Edn.
has a strange comment on ^ ^ in Dandin’s definition of the

Svabhavokti. It says that, according to some who base themselves
on this condition of * Nanavastha’, only a description of an object
in several states or of several objects in several states^ constitutes
a Svabhavokti, and not the description of an object in a single
state ! This too literal an interpretation of Dandin is not justifiable.

104

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

What about Varta in Dandin ? It is not found in the con-
text of Svabhavokti nor anywhere in Ch. II. We find it in
Ch. I in Dandin’s treatment of the Guna called Kanti,
I, 85-87.

^ II

Kanti has a certain amount of kinship with Svabhavoktu
since in both, there is no perceptible stepping out of the
inormal mode of saying, Laukikartha-anatikrama. Such Kanti,
Dandin says, is found in Vartabhidhana and Varnana and
illustrates Vartabhidhana with the following verse :

II I. 86.

The GaudI style which would not be content with this expres-
sion with Kanti, would say : etc. This

Varta is a sweet complement or word of welcome or enquiry
on the occasion of the arrival of a worthy guest. It is thus
clear that Varta here is not any Alahkara, nor the Alahkara
which the Jayamangala says Bafti is illustrating. Such is the
view of the commentators and later writers also, none of
whom sees reference to any Alahkara in the Varta here.

rTTO says the Hrdayahgama. Hema-*

candra, while reviewing the old Gunas in his gloss on his own
K. Anus'asana, refers to Dandin’s Kanti in Varta and Varnana

and interprets Varta as a ‘ complement ’ f

I p. 200, K. A. S'ihgabhupala also says that
Varta is a welfare-enquiry : qW l

HISTORY OF SVABHaVOKTI

105

p. 67, T.S.S. Edn. Ratnes^vara’s gloss on S.K.A., I, p. 114 :

Rudrata classifies the Arthalahkaras into four classes,
Vastava, Aupamya, Atis'aya and S'lesa. All the three here
except the first involve an embellishment by a simile or an ex-
aggeration or a play on the words- In Vastava, we have the
bare idea as it is, untwisted, Aviparlta ; but even as Bana
said ‘ Agramya Rudrata says, ‘ Pustartha Apusta, the
bald statement, comes under the Dosas.

I

K. A. VIII, 10,

Namisadhu ; 1 —

m 5 iiTiT^iq: ii ’

5T i

To this class of Vastava figures, Rudrata assigns Sahokti,
Samuccaya, Jdti, Yathasaitikhya, Bhava, Paryaya, Visama,
Anumana, Dipaka, Parikara, Parivrtti, Parisamkhya, Hetu,
Karanamala, Vyatireka, Anyonya, Uttara, Sara, Suksma, Les'a,
Avasara, Milita and EkavalL Of these Jati is Vastava par
excellence. In VII. 30-31, Rudrata speaks of the several
varieties of Jati, Form, Pose etc., and subjects for Jati like
children, maidens etc., as already mentioned. There is one

^ C/. Jivananda VidyavSagar’s gloss on the Kavyadars'a .*
3TiT]Tr^?TT^Tq: i ‘ ^ I

Here is mentioned another meaning also of Varta as * ^

which is not satisfactory. But none has taken Dandin’s Varta
here as the name of Alankara.

106

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'aSTRA

point in Namisadhu’s gloss on Jati in Rudrata which is worth
noting. He says that whereas Vastava means only a
statement of a thing as it is, Jati implies a vivid picture that
can create an experience, an Anubhava, of the thing in the
mind. \ q?! q?^'4

I This is the significance of the qualification
to Jati which writers add, Agramya, Caru, Pusta and so on.

Udbhata recognizes Svabhavokti and gives it with a
definition and illustration in the third Varga :

^Tqj IfTqjTqt i

ii iii. 8 . 9.

What must be noted in Udbhata’s treatment of Svabhavokti
is his unwarranted restriction of the scope of Svabhavokti
to the Hevaka, eagerness or fondness, in their respective
activities of young ones of animals and the like. Neither
to one class of beings like young ones of animals nor to one
aspect only viz», action, Kriya, can Svabhavokti be restricted.
The commentary on Udbhata’s K.A.S.S. published in the
*GOS. as Tilaka’s, definitely says that a description of the
nature of things as such is not Svabhavokti but only the
^ Hevaka ’ of Balamrga and the like in their activities : sqfPTR-

1 But, fortunately, Pratiharenduraja liberally interprets
Hevaka and enlarges the scope of this figure to its nor-
mal extent.

Bhoja’s treatment of Svabhavokti has something note-
worthy, both in his Sarasvatikanthabharana (S.K.A.) and

HISTORY OF SVABHAVOKTI

107

the S'rngara Prakas'a (SV. Pra.). The S.K.A. says in
III. 4-5 :

f^tlT sjf^^ I

5iTqnT^(siffl)'?i #!5 ?n II

Characteristics which are born in things in their several states
and which, by nature, pertain to them form the subject of
Jati. By the second qualification that the characteristics shall
pertain to the things by nature, — ^ —
Bhoja, as explained by Ratnes'vara, excludes external associa-
tions like reminiscences, reflections etc., on seeing the objects.®
The first qualification is fully explained in the second verse
from which we learn that it is intended to keep distinct the
Alankara Svabhavokti and the Guna Arthavyakti. This ques-
tion takes us to Vamana’s Arthaguna Arthavyakti in the defini-
tion of which Vamana uses the word Vastusvabhava and whose
two illustrations are simply two cases of Svabhavokti. (K.A.
Su. III. ii. 13). I VIRRT

, 31^ ai»45qrTfi: I It is clear from this that either
Arthavyakti or Svabhavokti does not obviate the need for the
other; nor is there any need to point out how the two do not
overlap. It is rather illogical to distinguish two things of
two different classes, one a Guna and another an Alankara.
This Arthavyakti of Vamana is a quality pertaining to the

' For this correct reading, see Bhatta Gopala*s gloss on the
Kavyaprakas'a T.S.S. Edn.

2135114: + + 3irf^’

•F2IT44 9IT?— I 1 Ratnes'vara.

108

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'lSTRA

Alankara called Svabhavokti, and to other kinds of expressions
also.* Still Bhoja tries to show us the difference between
Arthavyakti and Svabhavokti. He says that in Arthavyakti
only those aspects of an object are presented which form its
permanent distinguishing attributes, Sarvakalikam rupam,
whereas in Svabhavokti those aspects which are manifest as a
result of a particular mood or situation, Avasthasu jayamanam
rupam, are presented. This latter is, as contrasted with the
Sarvakalika svarupa, an Agantuka svarupa. Says Ratnes'vara :

gr^qvi# ’ | This is an unnecessary distinction

which brings in its train an unwarranted restriction of the
scope of Svabhavokti to ‘ special states Bhoja here re-
sembles those who dragged down the Prabandha Guna
Bhavika to the state of Vakyalahkara and then began pro-
pounding its difference from Svabhavokti.*

The Agnipurana which draws upon Bhoja to a great
extent,'^ borrows this classification of the nature of a thing
into Sarvakalika and Agantuka or Jayamana. The Agnipurana

‘ Mammata rightly realises Arthavyakti to be a quality pre-
eminently necessary for all good poetry and gives its scope as
embracing not only Svabhavokti but cases of Rasadhvani etc. also.
See Ch. 8, p. 187. T.S.S. Edn. of the Kavyaprakas'a. When Hema-
candra says that Vamana's Arthavyakti guna is needless, because
it is nothing but the Alankara named Jati, he is not making a proper
criticism. (3Tf^ ^ 5fT^iifjTFTfl?5fR §[% p. 199). Cf. Bhatta Gopala—
g i p. i87, T.s.s. Edn.

* See also Ch. on Bhoja and Svabhavokti in my Ph. D. Thesis
on Bhoja’s S'r. Pra. Vol. I. pt. 1. pp. 139-144.

^ For other ideas in the Agnipurana taken from Bhoja, see the
present writer’s Riti and Guna in the Agnipurana in the IHQ.^
Vol. X, pp. 767-779.

HISTORY OF SVABHaVOKTI

109

calls Svabhavokti by the name Svarupalahkara. (Ch. 344).

| it defines the figure thus :

rl«n I

From its stopping with this and saying no more, we have to
conclude that the Agnipurana would have Svabhavokti in both
cases unlike Bhoja who would have Arthavyakti in the
former case.

Besides reproducing what he said in the S.K.A. on Sva-
bhavokti or Jati, Bhoja gives an additional idea in his S'r.
Prakas'a. As indicated once previously, he carries out to its
scientific length the classification in Dandin of poetic expres-
sion into Svabhavokti and Vakrokti. He separates the Rasas
from Vakrokti’s fold and constitutes them into the third class
called Rasokti. While doing so, he defines each of these three as
expression dominated respectively by Guna, Upama and other
Alankaras, and Rasa.

1 1 ” s'r. Pa.,

Madras MS., Vol. II, ch. xi, p. 372. This is just hinted in
the fifth ch. of the S.K.A. where Bhoja says :

3^3 JITfloft II V. 8.

The idea in defining in the S'r. Pra. Svabhavokti as expression
dominated by the Gunas is that when there is none of the
figures beginning with Upama, the only thing the expression
possesses is the Gunas. This has been explained at length in
my thesis on Bhoja’s S'r. Pra., Vol. I. pt, 1. pp. 143-4.

110

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

BahurupamisTa accepts this three-fold classification of
poetic expression in his commentar}'^ on the Das'arupaka
which I have reviewed in detail in J.O.R., Vol. VIII, p. 325,

The anonymous Sahityamim&msa, now edited in a very
unsatisfactory manner in the T.S.S. (No. 114), is a work
based on Bhoja’s S'r. Pra. which it reproduces extensively^
It gives Bhoja’s classification of Kavya-ukti into these three
classes of Svabhava, Vakra and Rasa Uktis ; only it calls
Svabhavokti, Rjukti (p. 99). It reproduces also the S.K.A,
verse on the difference between Svabhavokti and Arthavyakti.

In connection with Mammata’s treatment of Svabhavokti,
the only interesting point to which attention can be drawn is
Vidyacakravarttin’s rather incorrect understanding and conse-
quent needless criticism of the Sandhivigrahika f.e., Vis'va-
natha, a point which I have set forth at some length in
a note in the Annals of the B.O.R.I., Vol. XIV, pp. 251
and 254.

In the history of the concept of Svabhavokti, the names
of Kuntaka and Mahimabhatta stand out prominently. The
former denies that it is an Alankara and the latter comes out
with an eloquent defence of it as an Alankara. Kuntaka
must be put down as a follower of Bhamaha with this diffe-
rence that while for Bhamaha, Svabhavokti is comprehended
as a variety of Alankara in Vakrokti, for Kuntaka, Svabha-
vokti is not to be called an Alankara or a species of Vakrokti
because it is the very nature of the idea which forms tfie
material for the further employment of Vakrokti. That is,
Kuntaka considers Svabhavokti as the Alankarya, i.e., the
Kavya S'arira and if it is itself called Alankara, it will be an
impossible case of Alankara decorating itself, as impossible as
one mounting one’s own shoulders. Kuntaka is not behind
anybody in his appreciation of verses of unembellished grace,.

HISTORY OF SVABHAVOKTI

in

but in all those cases he would say that the subject or idea
itself, the Vastu, has an innate Saundarya or Vakrata. Cases
which are Svabhavokti for others would be cases of Vastu
vakrata for Kuntaka. But Vastu which has Vakrata is diffe-
rent from ordinary Vastu devoid of Vakrata, as in ordinary
talk. Does not this distinguishing Vakrata which separates
Loka vastu and Kavya vastu amount to Alahkara ? It may not
be so much Vicchitti as is found in other species of Vakrokti
but yet it is some Vicchitti and as such is Alahkara ; and it
does not pertain ordinarily to all instances ; only poets are
able to say things with that Vastu vakrata. And Vakrata is
Vakrokti. To this Kuntaka would reply that as far as poetry
is concerned, only such Vastu as has beauty is relevant ; the
bald Vastu is out of the scope of the discussion. But, if on
the score of this Vakrata, one would call a Svabhavakhyana
as Svabhavokti Alahkara, Kuntaka would seem to yield a
little that there is after all only a dispute in names.

V. J., p. 139.

In the second Vimars'a of his Vyaktiviveka, Mahima-
bhatta speaks of five flaws the last of which is Vacya-avacana
under which he treats of a closely related flaw, Avacya-vacana,

^ As Valmiki also would say (while describing Sita) :

Sundara. 17. 25.

* Some other minor objections are also pointed out by Kuntaka.
He asks that if Vastusvabhava itself is Alahkara, what then shall
an Alahkara adorn and adds that if Vastusvabhava itself is one
Alahkara, every case of another Alahkara will be a case of Sankara
or Samsrsti (V.J., pp. 24-25).

112 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

the putting in of what ought not to be put in. Attributes
which do not add to the significance or words which do not
heighten or aspects of things which are commonplace and are
devoid of any charm — these if expressed form the flaw of
Avacya-vacana. Sometimes when a poet nods, when lesser
writers have got to fill in parts of the metrical line, such things
get in. These Mahima calls ‘ Apratibhodbhava born of a
mind lacking Imagination and Inspiration. These are the
^ dust ’ that must be swept out of poetry, ‘ Avakara’ as Mahima
calls them.

II. p. 107. V. V. T.S.S. Edn.

This topic directly leads Mahimabhatta to an examination of
Svabhavokti Alankara. When a poet describes a thing as it
is he must not present us with the well-known and common-
place aspects of things, a description of which does not make
the picture live before our eyes, Thus a case of

Svabhavokti is most liable to the flaw of Avacyarvacana
described in the terms and

Hence did Bana qualify Jati by Agramyatva and Rudrata by
Pustarthatva.* One must be a poet of imagination and in-
spiration to write a real Svabhavokti with power to live before

^ A bald statement comes under an Arthadosa called Apusta,
Niralankara and so on.

V.V,, p. 109. See also Bhoja’s S.K.A., pp. 30, 37 and 38 and
Ratnes'vara’s com. there.

HISTORY OF SVABHAVOKTJ

113

our mind’s eye. In I. 12, p. 23, Kuntaka said that nothing
can be talked of without reference to its Svabhava or nature,
and that there can be no case of expression devoid of Svabhava-
delineation ; for no object is conceivable without its nature
and attributes.

^ II V. J. I, 12.

A statement of this unavoidable Svabhava cannot be an Alah-
kara. With reference to this Mahima says :

(fZT)' 11

Hcf Rra^ngqi^j; II

^oi (or f^rSlT) II

^TT f| I

^ This correct reading is found in the ‘ different readings ’
given at the end of the T.S.S. Edn, of the V.V., and is found also
in Hemacandra who reproduces these verses on p. 275 of his K.A.
Vya.

^ See Hemacandra for the correct word ' Dhyamala *, meaning
^ impure, tainted ’.

8

114

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

^IclT I

^^: qf^^lTfq^T: II p. 108 .

21: ^'\s??fT^lR(ie^S5155fR)*jih^: t
fi^Eil^Jl^l#T?2|8iT 5^ f| 5i^321TcI II
^gHT^TTg^T?^ m: I

*3i^w It

p. 109, V.V. T.S.S. p:dn.

The commentary on the V. V. does not extend to this section
but the following extracts will serve to show how Hemacandra
and Manikyacandra understood the above verses of Mahima-
bhatta :

^fqsi^212TT

^ ^d^21: I ^■—

3qT ii ’ (Kuntaka)

2?flf^qfdqif33, tifecmq I f| flmpq-

^f%^TS^SQ51T4: I q5fqRffl^lT^:ii?f#qf^qq^ ^SFl^-

I (quotation of the above verses from

Mahima) Hemacandra, p, 275, com. —

* See Hemacandra.

^ Hemacandra also reads incorrectly ‘ Anyalankara. ’

’ This half is missing in the T.S.S. Edn. and is supplied here
from Hemacandra.

HISTORY OF SVABHaVOKTI

115

g 31^ ^.^ st^lTT: I p. 403,

Mysore Edn. Manikyacandra’s gloss on the K. Prakas'a.

It is accepted by logicians that in one’s apprehension of
an object there are really two kinds of aw^areness, one of the
object itself as such and another of the object as possessing a
name and as belonging to a class. Perception is thus indeter-
minate and determinate, Nirvikalpaka and Savikalpaka.
Somewhat similar to this, there are the two apprehensions of
an object by a poet endow'ed with penetrating imagination and
by an ordinary man. The latter sees w^hat is but the common
nature, Samanyarupa, of an object ; the expression which he
uses in communicating about that object communicates only
the ordinary nature of the object. But the imaginative eye of
the poet which is like a Yogin’s vision or a divine third eye,
sees a special aspect of the thing, not w ith reference to its
common nature, but details whose presentation reveal a
wondrous picture of it. If w^e understand Mahimabhatta’s
Samanya and Vis'esa Svabhavas in such a general manner,
his verses do not offer any problem for interpretation.
The commonplace Svabhava of thing wall be the scientific
facts about an object, its attributes as pertaining to a class ; a
bald statement of these as in etc. w^ould not

constitute Svabhavokti Alankara ; this ordinary nature of the
thing is the fact available in the world and forms the material
for the play of the poet’s imagination and fancy ; it is the
Alankarya. The striking and special aspect of the thing, its
Vis'ista Svabhava, which the poet’s eye alone sees and his
imagination alone embodies in words of poetry, is the object of

116 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKAKA S'aSTRA

Svabhavokti Alankarana. In as much as this Visdsta Svabhava
is not * Siddha’, but is ‘ Sadhyamana’ through the play of the
poet^s Pratibha, it is Alahkara. The drab matter of fact
Svabhava is out of the scope of any Alahkara. Hence did the
previous writers also insist on Jati being Agramya, Pusta,^
Cam and so on. Ruyyaka calls this Suksma svabhava and
Vidyadhara, Uccais svabhava. Kimtaka would, however,
reply that he is still unanswered ; for, to him, it is the Vis'ista
svabhava that forms the Kavya s'arira and the other Svabhava
is out of account in a discussion in poetics.

I V.J. Ill, p. 135.

Artha in Kavya is, by necessity, Sundara : ^'4*.

I I. 6, V.J. The Vis'ista Svabhava varnana is a
case of the Vastu itself having the requisite Vakrata. But to
others, as has already been said, this Vakrata which is surely
a result of the poet’s power and is not something existing
there already, is reason enough to call the case an Alahkara.

Ruyyaka has something special to contribute to the study
of Svabhavokti. He has touched an aspect of the question
not dealt with by others. It is his distinction of Svabhavokti
from Bhavika. It is, however, a question which cannot be
gone into fully except after a survey of the history of the.
concept of Bhavika from the beginning and for this reason is
reserved for the next chapter.

* Cf. Apusta dosa and Niralahkara dosa (in cases where the
Samanya Svabhava is given) in the Dosa prakaratja of the books.

THE HISTORY OF BHAVTKA IN SANSKRIT POETICS

Bhamaha says at the end of his Alahkaras :

qqjqf ii

^qTqT^T|qTq^ ^ffl(or fq)qtqqT I

tTHi ^ qq^^ n iii. 52-53.

Bhamaha here speaks of a concept which he calls a Guna,
not of Vakya, but of the Prabandha as a whole. As it has
been treated of at the end of Alahkaras, we have to suppose that
Bhamaha considered this also as an Alahkara, with this differ-
ence, that while the rest were restricted to a Vakya, this was
pervasive of a whole part of a poetic composition or of the
whole composition itself. As a matter of fact, Bhamaha calls
this Bhavikatva an Alahkara in the beginning of the third
chapter :

^ 1 iii. 4.

That Bhamaha considered this Bhavikatva described as a Pra-
bandha guna as an Alahkara is confirmed by the words of the
Jayamahgala on Bhatti also :

What is this Bhavikatva ? Bhamaha defines this as the
quality which pertains to that part of a composition where the

118 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'aSTRA

ideas of the past and the future presented by the poet are so
vivid as to look like belonging to the present. The term
‘ Prabandha ’ may be rendered here as ‘ that part of the poem ’
on the force of the word ' yatra' and on the basis of the
Jayamahgala which points out only one canto in illustration
of this Bhavikatva. But it seems that Bhavikatva is really a
quality of prime necessity which all great and good poetry
should, from beginning to end, possess. The poet is like the Rsi
who brings through the power of his vision the past and future
into the present.

Anargharaghava, II. 34.

As one reads the poem, it should begin to live before his eyes :
that is, it should appear before the mind’s eye of the reader
that the story is happening in his very presence. It is this
* pratyaksayamanatva ’ which the Arsa-Sahrdayas who listened
to the inaugural recitation of Valmiki’s epic said that the Adi-
kavya possessed :

I i. 4. 17.

Such a ‘ reality ’ called forth by ‘ imagination ’ seems to
be called by some word derived from bhava : bhava itself or
bhavana or bhavika or bhavita, or udbhavana. In this con-
nection it should be pointed out here that the twelfth ahga of
the Lasya is called bhava and bhavita and that it is defined as
an ‘ imaginary vision in which, having seen her lover in a
dream, the beloved supposes him to be present with her and
begins to give expression to consequent emotions :

Ch. XX, S'l. 139. Kas-I Edn.

HISTORY OF BHAVIKA

119

1ST fss S^IJT^cTTfq^T I

•I

ii &i 152. ibid

Abhinava, who does not accept more than ten Lasyahgas, refers
to others who proposed two more Lasyahgas and here, be gives
4;he Bhavita as Bhavika.

wn qsf^ ^ etc.

p. 510, vol. II, Abhi. Bha. Madras MS.

In the Bha. Pra., S'aradatanaya also gives it as Bhavika.

To return to Bhamaha, — the means to achieve this Bhavi-
katva are mentioned by Bhamaha in the second verse. They
are three : citrodMtddhhiitdrthatvamy kathdydh svabhi (or vl)
nltatd, and s'abddndkulatd. Of these three, it seems the
second should be taken first. There does not seem to be any
reference to drama or Abhinaya here, in the expression ‘ Katha-
yah Svabhinltatd' There is a reading ' svavinltatd ’ which
the Jayamahgala supports. It simply means that the story
should progress very smoothly and with gripping interest,
there being no hitch, no vagueness and nothing mystifying.
Then comes the first means which applies to the ideas with
which the story is worked out ; the Arthas should be striking
and exalted enough to capture the imagination. Then comes
the third means, which refers to the verbal expression which
should not be * involved ’ or such as to prevent a quick grasp of
the ideas or the story. ^

* In the Samanyabhinaya chapter (24th, Kas'i Edn.), Bharata
refers to two kinds of drama and its presentation (Prayoga), —
Abhyantara and Bahya. In the definition of the Abhyantara Natya
prayoga, we find ideas similar to those by which Bhamaha defines
Bhavikatva.

g w S'l. 71.

120

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S^ASTRA

Bhatti, as interpreted by the Jayamahgala, considered
that primarily poetry must have Prasada ; hence, when after
illustrating grammar he comes to the illustration of poetics,
he calls the section Prasanna kanda. Next to Prasada are the
Alahkaras ; then comes Madhurya guna illustrated by a descrip^
tion of dawn ; next appears a canto, the 12th, which is said to
illustrate Bhavikatva. The Jayamahgala here says that Bhavi-
katva is an Alahkara mentioned as pertaining to a whole com-
position and not to a sentence ; and it results from the ideas
being * wonderful ’ and so on. It then quotes Bhamaha’s two
verses on Bhavikatva and concludes that in that canto of
Mantranirnaya, deliberation in Ravana's court, Bhavikatva
must be held to have been illustrated.

1) I

(the two verses of Bhamaha quoted above) t

To begin with, this canto has 5 verses addressed to
Vibhisana by his mother, s'ls. 2-6, These five verses are said
to illustrate Udattarthatva. In the discussion and counsel that
follow, one must look for the other features,

and Says the Jayamahgala : (p. 307,

N. S. edn.)

HISTORY OF BHaVIKA

121

The Jayamaiigala says here only one definite thing ; that
the svavinUatd of kathd means ‘ subodhata easy understanda-
bility of the story. J^eyond this, vve are not able to know
what exactly in this canto answer to the conditions Udat-
tdrtha, Citrdrthay Adbhutartha, KatJidyah svavinUatd, and
S* abddndkulatd ; nor are we able to see how in this particular
canto, things of past and future are made to appear as present
ones. It is needless to add that Mallinatha is of less
help here.

Dandin also, like Bhamaha, calls Bhavikatva or Bhavika,
a Prabandha guna. He has three verses on it, at the end of
his Alankdras and in these verses, there are ideas not found in
Bhamaha.

(1) or

II

(2) 1

(i) (4) 11

(5) I

II

If we leave the initial agreement in calling it a Prabandha
guna, we find that there is nothing of what Bhamaha said in
Dandin's description of the Bhavika. Perhaps, the fifth id6a,
the clear appearance of even a deep lying idea by the force or
the sequence of the expression, contains a faint echo of Bha-
maha’s idea of past and future being as alive as present,

I All the other ideas in Dandin
numbering four turn on the derivation of Bhavikatva from
Bhava, so clearly stated in idea number one. The several

122 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'lSTRA

parts or sections of a composition being mutually helpful,
avoidance of the needless details, descriptions only at places
proper for them — all these are ideas oi Aucitya, common in later
days but striking in an early writer. All these ideas of Aucitya,
flow out of the idea of the poet (kavibhdva) and Dr. De finds
here a (as Ananda would say) of the aesthetical problem

of poetry being the expression of the poet’s mind, with which,
he adds, western poetics is so much concerned and Sanskrit
poetics so little.' But what Dandin actually meant by Kavi-
abhipraya can only be conjectured ; and the commentators are
of little help. It is however clear that Bhavikatva was in
vogue among critics in the pre-Bhamaha days and that when
we come to Bhamaha and Dandin, already guess-work had
started. Dandin’s Bhavika as Kavi-abhipraya, the mutual
helpfulness of parts etc., died with him. No later writer
revived it. For the later writers, the Bhavika was what Bha-
maha gave them through Udbhata.

Ubdhata made it a definite Alankara casting of the ad'
junct, Prabandha guna. He defines it towards the close of
the sixth varga, in a single verse :

I! K.A.S.S.

o

Bhavikatva has now definitely become bhavi^u:. Udbhata
felt that in the expression, Citroddttdcibhutdrtha , there is much
redundance ; he satisfied himself with a single qualification of
artha, Atyadhhtita. He left off Bhamaha’s second condition,
* kathayah svabhinitata.’ Perhaps honesty is responsible
for Udbhata’s omission of this un-understandable bit.

^ See bis Intro, to V.J., p, xx, Skr, Poetics, II, p, 63, f.n., and
Pathak Com. VoL, p. 355.

HISTORY OF BHaVIKA

123

* S'abdanakiilatd ’ recurs here as ‘ vdcdm andkulyaJ* The main
definition of Bhavika given by Bhamaha, the present-like
appearance of the pas^ and future, is retained by Udbhata.

Pratiharenduraja occupies an important place in the
history of Bhavika. At his hands the concept reached its
widest interpretation. While commenting on Udbhata, he
quotes and explains Bhamaha’s two verses on Bhavikatva ; and
Dandin’s explanation — bhavah kaveh abhiprayah — is also
found absorbed in Pratiharenduraja ’s imaginative exposition
of Bhavika. ' Vdcdm andkulya" in Udbhata and ‘
kiilatd ’ in Bhamaha are interpreted by him as the quick deli-
very of the meaning, a quality of the words allied to Prasada
and Arthavyakti ; Prasada and Arthavyakti are to be included
here in this Bhavika and not vice versa, as Ruyyaka adds.

I Pratiharendu, p. 79.^

Ruyyaka, A.S.]

Pratiharenduraja makes Bhavika the very essence of Rasa-
realisation. It has been pointed out by Ananda (Dhva. A.,
II, xi, p. 82) that Prasada is pre-eminently necessary for
rasa-realisation. The second condition ^'-^11^1*. is

directly related by Pratiharenduraja to Rasa-realisation by inter-
preting * svabhinitata ’ as referring to the clear presentation
(abhinaya) of the Rasas.

I p. 80.

^ Edn. Banhatti, 1925.

124

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

The other condition of Artha being Citra, Udatta and
and Adbhuta is emphasised by Pratiharendu as a feature of
Artha corresponding to the feature of S'abda called Sahda
andkulatd,

Ig:,

1 p. 80.

Ideas should be exalted, expression transparent and emo-
tion graphically presented. When these are there, the Sahr-
daya’s mind realises completely the poet ’s mind mirrored
in his poetry. Thus Pratiharenduraja touches Dandin’s
and Bhatta Nayaka’s It appears

Pratiharenduraja’s idea of Bhavika has affinities with the
concept of Imagination, lying at the basis of not only poetic
creation but also of the critic’s aesthetic re-creation of poetry
in his enjoyment of it. Pratiharenduraja actually says that
Bhavika refers both to the poet and to the Sahrdaya between
whom a circuit of experience is completed.

^Tf»i£lWT^5JT I

HISTORY OF BHAVIKA

125

j ^Tl^sffqfjqg^ ^1%

I ^T^Tl: —

5i5?]»53:q^T 1
Rq;T5lH II

cf^^F^l^: 3fs =^qTI H%rl, II
II pp. 79-80.

Udbhata’s illustration is a verse in which reference is
made to a damsel having had (bhuta) collyriiim in her eye, and
to her future (bhdvi) wearing of ornaments ! Pratiharendu no
doubt offers some comments on the illustration but what a far
cry from the great concept of aesthetics that Bhavika is to him
and to what is said to be illustrated in this verse !

Mammata’ takes his idea of Bhavika from Udbhata, but
in his definition, he omits two ideas : first, the qualification of
things by the attribute and second, the means,

Marnmata’s illustration is much the same as Ud>
bhata ’s: the lover says that he can see that there was collyrium
in the lady’s eyes and he can imagine also how she will look
when she is adorned with ornaments ! It is however not the
mention in so many ideas and words of the past and future
that is meant by Bhamaha when he says that Bhavika is the
quality which makes the past and future event so vivid as to
appear like happening before our very eyes. But through
Udbhata, and Mammata also, a great concept of aesthetics fell
to the place of a narrow rhetorical figure of a Vakya.

^ ‘ Bhava * alahkara in Rudrata has nothing to do with the
Bhavika of this chapter, which is absent in Rudrata.

126

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

When Bhavika was reduced to this state, trouble arose
and writers had to show that it did not overlap two others,
viz., Svabhavokti on one side and Rasokti on the other.
Mammata’s commentator, V^idyacakravarttin, explains why
Mammata omitted from his definition of the Bhavika the
statement of the means, S^ahddndkulya : When things of the
past and future are visualised, there are two possibilities : The
things by themselves may possess a power and beauty where-
by their mere mention may make them look like being actually
present before us ; or this quality of their becoming vivid
enough to appear like things of the present may be wrought
in them through the extraordinary gifts of expression in the
poet, * s'abddndkidya' etc. To Bhamaha and Udbhata, only
the latter cases were Bhavika ; for to become an Alahkara, a
poet’s powers must have added something.^ Mammata how-
ever thinks that both cases are Bhavika ; though it is true
that for an Alahkara there has to be something wrought
by the poet, we have ^ Svabhavokti ’ where the beauty is
more or less ‘ siddha ’ ; even so, a presentation of such
past and future things as possess an innate beauty and power
is also a case of ‘ Bhavikalahkara ’ ; otherwise, we will have to
commit the flaw of logical gaurava by creating a new name
for this variety. Ruyyaka, in his Alahkara Sarvasva, first
follows the older writers, but in the end quotes and recon-
ciles Mammata to the older position, by accepting two
varieties of Bhavika. Vidyacakravarttin here takes Viswanatha
to task for not understanding Ruyyaka properly and this has
been set forth by me at some length in a note in the Annals

^ This statement of Bhamaha’s and Udbhata’s view of Bhavika
by Vidj^acakravarttin does not seem to be wholly correct ; for, by
the adjuncts and both Bhamaha

and Udbhata mean that the things, by themselves also, must have
something striking and gripping.

HISTORY OF BHAVIKA

127

of the BORI., vol. XIV, pp. 251-2, 254. It is needless to
quote Vidyacakravarttin’s text here. (T.S.S. edn. of the
K. Fra., pt. II, 346-7).^

It was seen in Pratiharenduraja’s exposition of the
Bhavika how this concept became, at his hands, the very soul
of Rasa-realisation and how, on reading it, our minds went to
Bhatta Nayaka’s Bhavana, and the concept of Imagination.
See Ruyyaka :

— I ?fT ^

^ 1 m ^ ilTcj^T ^^JT^T^W^R3Tf)T,

Pp. 221-223. T.S.S. Edn. A.S.

which Bhatta Gopala reproduces thus in his gloss on the
K. pra. —

R5r I

p. 347. T.S.S. Edn. II.

This relates Bhava or Bhavana more definitely to the
reader also, even as Pratiharenduraja did.

To begin with, Ruyyaka also defined (in the Sutra)
Bhavika as simply as Mammata, as the ‘ Pratyaksayamanatva '
of ‘ bhuta * and ‘ bhavi \ without mention of the means S'abdd-
ndkulatd. But, in the Vrtti, he mentioned the ‘
of the ‘ Artha ' and the ‘ Andkulatd ' of the ‘ s^abda.’ Ruyyaka

128

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

then points out that this Bhdvika cannot be mistaken for or
included in Bhrdntimdn^ Atis'ayokti, Pratlyamdna Utpreksd,
Kdvyalingay Rasavdn and SvabhdvoktL Among these, we
shall concern ourselves only with Ruyyaka’s distinction of
Bhavika from the last two, Rasavadalaiikara and Svabhavokti.’

The gloss on Udbhata published as Tilaka’s in the GOS.
points out how the Bhavika would collide with Svabhavokti
and Rasavadalahkara.

p. 51, GOS. Edn.

Svabhavokti and Rasavad Rasokti as Bhoja would

say) are easily distinguished. They are both direct and gra-
phic presentation, the former of objects and the latter of
emotions. The former creates a Vastu-sarnvada in our mind ;
it rouses a mental image. The latter creates a Cittavrtti-sarn-
vada, an emotional image.

A.S. Ruyyaka, N.S. Edn. with Jayaratha’s gloss, p. 181.

I Jayaratha’s Vimars'inI on the A.S., p. 18-1.

From Mammata as explained by Vidyacakravarttin, we
understand that the difference between Bhavika and Sva-
bhavokti is firstly, in point of time, Le., things in Bhavika

* See the closing section of the previous chapter on Svabhavokti.
Ruyyaka shows how Bhavika differs from Prasada guna also.

HISTORY OF BHaVIKA

129

are either past or future ; and secondly, in the restricted
scope of Svabhavokti, which can describe only an object’s own
natural form and action, (Svakriyarupa varnana). But Ruy-
yaka says that Bhavika differs from both Rasavad and
Svabhavokti in being an objective realisation in which the
reader sees a thing as a yogin (bhinna sarvajha) sees the
past and future ; in Svabhavokti and Rasokti^ the limiting
contextual references get sunk ; subject-object duality merges
and not only is there a generalised or universalised experience
(Sadharanikrta) with reference to the characters presented in
the poem or drama, but there is also, for the time, a
loss or forgetting of the individuality of the reader or the
spectator.

q#: l

=q 1 p. 224, A.S., T.S.S. Edn.

Ruyyaka adds another difference between Bhavika and
Svabhavokti : in the former, only a miraculous (adbhuta and
lokottara : see his illustration incident figures,

whereas in the latter any ordinary iaea. But this difference
he casts off at once by saying that there may be^cases of vivid
realisation of even ordinary things of this world, but then it
would be a Bhavika with an element of Svabhavokti. Surely
Ruyyaka does not mean that alone: in such a case makes

9

130

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'lSTRA

Up the Bhavika and the Vastu being laukika makes up the
Svabhavokti.*

Frra; l PP- 224-5 Ruyyaka, A.S., T.S.S. Edn.

So, the main difference by which Ruyyaka would distin-
guish Bhavika from Svabhavokti and Rasavad is that in the two
latter cases, the PratTti is Sadharana. But this again is a thin
prop, to be given up. What kind of realisation in poetry can
there be without Sadharanikarana ? This universalisation has
to come about, even in the case of Bhavika. Ruyyaka no doubt
knows this but he adds, that when this Sadharanikarana floods
the heart of the reader, the Bhavika becomes Rasavad.

I p. 224, A.S., T.S.S. Edn.

^ As Samudrabandha mistakes in his gloss, pp. 224-5, T.S.S.

Edn.

^ {a) Manikyacandra adopts Ruyyaka’s distinction of Bhavika
from Svabhavokti and Rasavad. See p. 408. Mysore Edn. of the
K. Pra.

{h) Hemacandra says that Bhavika is either Svabhavokti or
some feature pertaining purely to drama ; that if it is pointed out
to be present in Muktakas, it is not found to be delectable ! p. 293,
K. A. Vya.

(c) Since Bhavika is said to present pictures separated by
time, the Candridoka adds a kin-alahkara called Bhavikacchavi for
presentation of things separated by space.

c# n v. 1 14.

id) For the connection Bhavika bears to the clear presenta-
tion and realisation of rasa, see the following verse of S'ri Harsa in
his Naisadhiya carita :

II XIX, [1.

RITI

The history of the concept of Riti has three stages: firsts
when it was a living geographical mode of literary criticism ;
second, when it lost the geographical association and came
to be stereotyped and standardised with reference to subject ;
and third, its re-interpretation by Kuntaka, the only Sanskrit
Alamkarika, who with his fine literary instinct and originality
as evidenced on many other lines also, related the Riti
to the character of the poet and displaced the old Ritis by
new ones.

Like national characteristics, there are also provincial
characteristics in manners. These are studied by Bharata in
the concept of Pravrtti as part of the complete understanding
of the world in its infinite variety, of which Natya is an
Anukara.^ The concept of Pravrtti in manners is Riti in
speech, in literature. Riti is literary manner.^ We first hear
of it in Bana. In the introductory verses at the beginning of
his Harsacarita, Bana remarks that certain parts of the
country produce literature marked b}’ certain characteristics.

^ See my paper on Lokadharmi, JOR., Madras, VIII, pp. 63-64.

^ Rajas'ekhara works out this relation between Pravrtti and
Riti in his mythological manner in his Kavya Purusa’s marriage
with Sahityavidya. K. M. Gaek. Edn., pp. 8-9.

132

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'iSTRA

There is no absurdity in such a geographical study ; it is
natural. With the Orient and India in particular, the
western writers associate opulence, extravagance, colour and
exaggeration. These strike them as the eastern manner in life
and literature. So also, Bana, speaking of the different parts
of this country, remarks that the northerners write nothing
but double entendre, the westerners, the bare idea ; the
southerners roll in imaginative conceits while the Gaudas
(easterners) make a display of wordy tumult.* But immediately

* Bana says in this verse that it is the westerners who write
the bare idea with the least flourish. The bare idea, Arthamatra,
has its opposite in Pallava. Bald idea is the flaw called Apusta
and similarly, too much Pallava is a flaw at the other extreme.
Beautiful Pallava, says Ratnes'yara in his commentary on the
Sarasvatikanthabharana (S. K. A.) II. p.l57, is the essence of
poetry. He quotes here two anonymous verses, according to which
it is not the westerners (as said by Bana) but the Northerners,
Udicyas, as contrasted with the Daksinatyas or Vaidarbhas, that
give the bare idea.

im d ii

arqssq g i

The Vaidarbhas or Daksinatyas enrich their expressions. Excess
of Pallava would however merit criticism at Bhamaha’s hands in

the words and Mahima would condemn

it as Avakara. Ratnes'vara refers only to the beautiful Pallava
which keeps within limits as in the Vaidarbhas’ expression.
Ratnes'vara considers the Vaidarbhas as experts fit to sit in judg-
ment on this subject. I fl

I p. 28. S. K. A. Vya. It is the vicious
Pallava which has prolix words and little idea that S'riharsa de-
scribes as the poison of speech. Fewest words for the greatest
effect is, in S'riharsa’s view, the climax of style.

Naisadha, IX, 8.

RITI

133

Bana thinks that the best writer combines all these four
qualities in the best manner,

^ m-. \

11

The bare idea is stale but a novel turn given to the idea makes
it striking : Navo'rthah, The natural description of things as
they are, Jati, can be effective, if the discription is not bald and
ordinary, Gramya. The S'lesa of the Udicyas is welcome but
it should be ‘ Aklista ’, not forced. The Aksaradambara of the
Gaudas has its own beauty but, all this has any beauty
only if Rasa “is transparent in the piece, sphuto rasah.
It is very difficult to combine these virtues ; but when
one achieves it, he is a great writer indeed. In these
two verses, Bana has spoken of four different styles,
each definite and distinct, with its own emphasis on
one particular feature, but has voted for casting away
an over-emphasis on each of these four characteristics
and for moderately and appropriately combining them
into one good style which looks like the Nisyanda of
the four.

When we first have some record of the habits of
literary criticism, w^e find two names, Vaidarbhl and Gaudi,
characterising two styles of composition. The north and the
west of the verse of Bana are lost. '^Two main distinguishable
styles had stayed, the other two having lost their individuality.
The Daksinatyas of Bana are the representatives of the Vai-
darbhl and his Gaudas represent the Gaudi style. We have
it as a tradition in Sanskrit literature that the Vidarbha coun-
try is the home of grace and beauty. Bharata speaks of the
beauty, Saukumarya, of the southerners in his Daksinatya

134

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'ASTRA

Pravrtti.^ Though most of the provinces in the south are includ-
ed by Bharata under Daksinatya, the chief place of the Kais'ikI
vrtti and the Daksinatya pravrtti is Vidarbha. The concep-
tion of the Daksinatya composition as abounding in Utpreksas
found in Bana had changed and the Vaidarbhas had developed
a graceful style. The Gaudas who were playing with sonorous
sound in Bana’s time developed their style on the same lines,
with their love for Aksaradambara embracing high -wrought
ornate figures also. Thus in course of time, circles of literary
critics, Kavya Gosthls, discussed poems and writings in terms
of the two Ritis, the Vaidarbhi and the Gaudl. There was
prevalent a dislike for the latter, since it abounded in excesses
of sound effects and figure effects. In this time appear Bha-
maha’s views on the two Ritis, disapproving of the method of
criticism based on the two Ritis which called the Vaidarbha
good and the Gaudiya, bad. It must be accepted that the
Vaidarbha had many graceful features, was simple and sweet,
with restraint in adornment, while the Gaudiya which began
as a style distinguished by ornament, overdid it and deteriorat-
ed. Bhamaha said : one need not condemn the Gaudi, nor
praise the Vaidarbhi. They are two styles of writing, each
characterised by certain distinguishing features. Provided
the writings in either style have well developed thought ex-
pressed in fine turns, not vulgar or insipid, and uninvolved,
both are acceptable. Without these general features of good
poetry, it will not be acceptable even if it is Vaidarbhi, *• If

*51^ ^%oiTe?rT

Bharata, N. S', p. 147. K. M. Edn.

Kuntaka refers to the natural sweetness of southern music.

p. 46. De’s Edn. V. J.

Cf. also the Vaidarbha- vivaha-nepathya referred to by Kalidasa
at the end of the Malavikagnimitra.

RiTI

135

these good features are present, it is acceptable, no matter if
it is Gaudl. That is, Bhamaha wants to end indiscreet literary
criticism led as if by^the nose by these two names, Vaidarbha
and Gaudlya. Both styles have features which can be over-
done ; consequently both have their vicious counterparts.
Thus the sweetness, simplicity and the unadornedness of the
Vaidarbhl can easily deteriorate into cloying liquids and nasals,
and bare idea of insipid ordinariness. This is what Bhamaha
says and it is but a sane view :

ii i. 34-35.

The Vaidarbha need not adorn itself very much ; but a mini-
mum of Vakrata is needed to avoid Gramyata. When one
has to praise a thing, it is neither enough nor beautiful to
simply say, without adopting telling turns of expressions,

‘ very much ’ etc. Says Bhamaha ;

if I

11 I. 36.

Thus, accepting the current habit of distinguishing writing
into two styles, Bhamaha would argue that both are acceptable,
if th^y do not overdo their distinguishing features and possess
■ the more general and necessary virtues of all good composi-
tion. He points out the possibility of a good handling of the

^ is not understood by D. T. Tatacharya

S^iromani, in his Sanskrit gloss on Bhamaha called Udyanavrtti.
See p. 17. hTM I ^ \ 3

Then he tries to give some explanation.

136

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

Gaudi andj similarly the possibility of a bad VaidarbhI. He
would not stress these two catchwords very much but would
emphasise more the other features of greater importance which
all good composition! should have, viz,,

?^^opland From this, we can now pass

to consider the final position of Bhamaha. As one w^ho
emphasises the above given features of all good poetry^
Bhamaha does I not propose to accept unthinkingly the
differentiation of writing into Vaidarbha and Gauda at alL
His is a double protest. First, it is against the partiality for
the VaidarbhI and the aversion for the Gaudi. He says : a lay
and blind world repeats w’^hat one has said, praises the
VaidarbhI and condemns the Gaudi, even when the Gaudi is
good and has good idea, sadartham api. Thus pleading for
the possibility of a good Gaudi with the auxiliary argument of
the possibility of a bad VaidarbhI, Bhamaha says that, per-
sonally, he would not attach much importance to the two
names VaidarbhI and Gaudi. As one w ho cares for the greater
virtues of good poetry in general, he says that he accepts such
composition as possesses those good qualities. He says that
he cannot distinguish two styles and that such a thing is non-
existent. But his opponents point out that, as for instance,
the Kavya (lost) called the As'viakavams'a is VaidarbhI. His
reply is, “ All right, call it whatever you please ; one gives
names as he pleases and that does not matter much. There is
no special kind of poetry called VaidarbhI. All poetic w ritihg
is accepted because it is adorned by Vakrokti.

3% II

RiTI

137

VO "N

^*1 ^T^OT 11

I. 30-33.

From these verses of Bhamaha on the two styles, we can
gather that in his time, some writers had held the Vaidarbhi
as the better style and the Gaud! as the worse. Of the Vai-
darbhi also we glean that

and were considered by those writers as

the distinguishing features. Vide sd. 34. If these ideas are
stuck to too much, Vaidarbhi deteriorates : If the Artha is
entirely Apusta, Avakra and Prasanna, it is insipid as ordinary
talk. If it is very much addicted to the habit of giving a sense
of sweetness to the ear alone, it is only like some song, heard
and forgotten.

m tTcf I!

Nllakantha Diksita in his S'ivalilarnava, Canto I. 17-

mT^ ^oi^sfq qM: q^iqisfq 11

Ibid,, Canto I. 14..

In a similar manner we can also glean from Bhamaha’s
remarks what features were attributed b}^ writers of his time
to the GaudI, by writers who condemned it. These features
can be gathered from verse 35 and they are Atyalamkara^
Akulatva etc. The GaudI they condemned had too much
Aksaradambara and was Akula, at the sacrifice of idea, Anar-^
thya. This current of criticism against the GaudI continued
to flow, despite Bhamaha's efforts to stop it. The good Gaud!
envisaged by Bhamaha was however not demonstrated, in all

138

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'lSTRA

probability, by the representatives of the GaudI and so the
Gaud! came to mean a bad style, with excess of S'abda and
Artha Alarhkara, poor in idea, hyperbolic and involved in ex-
pression. It is this GaudI that is the antithesis in the first
pariccheda of the Kavyadars'a of Dandin. By this time, the
names had not yet become non-geograph ical ; for Dandin often
refers only to the people of the east and the south, while
referring to the two styles and not, like later writers,
to the stereotyped modes of style without any geographical
significance.

It is often said that Dandin represents a school called the
‘ Guna school.’ In Bhamaha, at the beginning of chapter II,
we find three Gunas, Prasada, Madhurya and Ojas, the former
two going together as features of an Asamasa-sanghatana and
the third, standing against both Prasada and Madhurya, as the
Guna of Dlrgha-samasa-sarhghatana. While speaking of the
two Margas, Bhamaha mentions Komalatva, S'ruti pes'alatva,
and Prasannatva regarding the Vaidarbhl ; and while commend-
ing the good Gaudi, he says that it must be Anakula, which
means that there must not be very long compounds. Besides
this implied and traceable connection between the Gunas and
the two Margas, there is no definite mention, in Bhamaha, of
Gunas as the constituting elements of a Marga. Dandin ex-
pounds in the first chapter the Vaidarbha Marga which was
considered the best style. It was so considered because of the
presence in it of ten Gunas which constitute its life. Dandin
generally says that the reverses of these ten Gunas are seen
in the Gaudi which means bad poetry. A critical examina-
tion of these ten Gunas has been made elsewhere by
the present writer.^ Suffice it here to point out that some

^ See my thesis Bhoja’s S'rngara Prakas'a, Vol. I, Part 2, Ch.
on History of Gunas, pp. 282-293.

RiTI

139

Gunas are given by Dandin himself as excellences of both
Margas.*

Dandin mentions the ten Gunas as the life not of poetry
as such, but of the style called VaidarbhI. If, on the basis of
Dandin’s formulation of Gunas, one says that he belongs to
the Guna school, one can as well say that Dandin belongs to
the Riti school. Really Dandin belongs to the Alarhkara
school, much more than Bhamaha. For, to Dandin, Gunas,
Rasas, Sandhyahga, Vrttyahga, Laksana, — all are Alarhkara.
Apart from the word poetry, there is only one word for
Dandin, viz,, Alarhkara. The full development of Dandin, as
well as of Bhamaha, is seen in two directions in Bhoja and
Kuntaka."

In poetic expression there is always a finally analysable
scheme of two definite styles, the simple and the grandi-
loquent, the plain and the elevated, the unadorned and the
figurative. In the former, natural description of emotion,
men and things is given with minimum artificial decoration.
Svabhavokti and Rasokti, to borrow Bhoja’s classification,
predominate in it. Colour, ornament, — Vakrokti dominates
the latter. These two correspond to Dandin's two styles;
only the Gaud! is Vakrokti run riot. Kuntaka’s Sukumara
Marga, which emphasises Vakrokti less, belongs to the former
class. Kuntaka’s Vicitra marga marks an emphasis on the
Vaicitrya that Vakrokti imparts. Aristotle also gives only
two styles, the good and the bad, the good being so by any
sort of virtue, i.e,, good not only because of virtues of simpli-
city, elegance etc., but by virtues of vigour etc., also. His bad

’ Dr. S. K. De wrongly says in his Skr. Poetics II, p. 100 :
“ The ten Gunas are non-existent in the Gauda.’"

^See my Bhoja’s S'rngara Prakas'a, Vol. I, Part 1, p. 123;
Part 2, p. 417.

140

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

Style is the frigid style, resembling exactly Dandin’s GaudI, a
style which overshoots its mark. The plain and elegant style
of Demetrius corresponds to the Vaidarbhl of Dandin and the
Sukumara of Kuntaka. The elevated and the forcible of
Demetrius resembles the Vicitra Marga of Kuntaka and the
good GaudI envisaged by Bhamaha.

It is said that what we call Riti is not anything
similar to what is called in English ‘ style.’ Dr. S. K. De
sajns in his Skr. Poetics, II, p. 115 : “ It should be observed
that the term Riti is hardly equivalent to the English word
style, by which it is often rendered, but in which there is
always a distinct subjective valuation.” Again on p. 116 r
“ But, at the same time, the Riti is not, like the style, the
expression of poetic individuality as is generally understood
by western criticism, but it is merely the outward presentation
of its beauty called forth by a harmonious combination of
more or less fixed ‘ literary excellences’.” The word ‘ style ’
in English is not easily felt to be equivalent to the Sanskrit
Riti mainly on two grounds : (i) It is said that while the
English Style in all-comprehensive, the Sanskrit Riti com-
prises only a fixed set of Gunas. (ii) Ritis as expounded by
Sanskrit are only two or three or four or six, and are related
to certain kinds of subjects or themes whereas the English
Style is related to the author’s character. It is proposed to
make plain in the course of this study of Riti that it is neither
impossible nor incorrect to render Riti by the English word
Style, that Riti comprehends not only Gunas, but Alankaras
and Rasas also, that Ritis are not so few as two or six but
really as infinite as poets and that at least one or two Alanka-
rikas and poets have related Riti to the poet. It shall also be
shown that there are always two conceptions of Riti, a higher
and a larger one and a lower and a narrower one, a subjective

RITI

141

one and an objective one, in relation to the poet and in relation
to theme ; and that this is true of the English Style also, as
can be seen from its history in w^estern literary criticism from
Aristotle downwards. Actually, certain western writers find it
not only possible but quite sensible and useful too, not only to
classify style into a certain number of styles but also to relate
these classified and standardized styles to subject or theme.

As observed above, though Bhamaha does not definitely
give in so many words the relation of Gunas and Riti, we can
clearly see that his verses imply the theory of Riti as based
on the Gunas. For he speaks of Komalatva, Prasannatva and
S'rutipes'alatva regarding the VaidarbhI. But Bhamaha does
not stop here.* He speaks further of Arthaposa, Vakrokti,
Arthyatva, Nyayyatva and Anakulatva as features of a style of
acceptable poetry. Certainly these are comprehensive features
and stand for the very complete manner of writing. When
we analyse Dandin, we see that not only Gunas but Alankaras
also go to distinguish the Ritis. He says that the Gauda
marga is characterised by Anuprasa which is a S'abdalarhkara,
The flaw^ of S'aithilya, the reverse' of the S'lesa of the
VaidarbhI, is a result of Anuprasa.

I I. 44.

Again, speaking of the reverse of the Guna called Samata, in
Gauda marga, Dandin says :

^ 11 I. 50.

Madhurya involves S'rutyanuprasa.

' In his article on the Gaudi Riti in Theory and Practise in
LH.Q., Ill, 1927, Mr. Sivaprasad Bhattacharya renders ‘ Viparyaya ’
as misconception about or misapplication of the essentials of style.

142

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'ASTRA

t I I. 52.

Anuprasa in its Ulbana varieties is specialised in by the
Gaudas.

I I. 54.

As a matter of fact, Dandin treats of the S'abdalahkaras only
here. He treats of the Anuprasa here and keeps over the
Yamaka for the third chapter. The only difference is that the
Anuprasas of the Vaidarbhas are mild while those of the
Gaudas are wild.

^ 3 11 I. 58.

3T^ TlflloiMT: 11 1-60.

The Guna called Udara is no feature of the collocation like
S'lesa. It relates to thought and the mode of its expression.
When a noble and exalted description suggests a noble and
exalted quality of the person or object described, it is called
Udara Guna. This way of saying, so as to make the thing
intended to be said deliver itself by implication or suggestion —

is something beyond Guna and Alamkara. Nor is the second
variety of Udara — S'laghyavis'esana, — on a par with S'lesa.
The Guna of Kanti is similarly of a superior nature. It refers
to that method of expression wherein the author shows
restraint and moderation and avoids hyperboles. The Gaudas,
on the other hand, love hyperboles.

RITI

143

I I. 92.

Similarly Samadhi Guna brings in its train Samasokti
Alarhkara. Thus, an examination of Dandin shows that the
Margas are characterised not merely by a set of fixed features
which pertain to collocation alone. The Gunas mean much
more than what they seem to. The Gunas themselves must
be clearly understood. Riti cannot be demeaned by simply
saying that it is called forth by a set of more or less fixed
literary excellences.

Vamana began grandly by declaring Riti as the soul
of poetry. He however defined Riti as Padaracana,
but qualified it with the word Visdsta. Vamana is the
first writer to give a classification of Gunas into those of
S'abda and those of Artha. The mere excellences of Bandha
are S'abda gunas ; Riti there is at its lower level. The Artha-
gunas lift up Riti to the higher position. The Artha-
gunas are comprehensive and reach up to Rasa. The
Arthaguna Ojas, Praudhi of various kinds, Madhurya which is
Uktivaicitrya, S'lesa which is Ghatana of various kinds, Kanti
which is brilliancy of Rasas — these comprehend poetic ex-
pression in all aspects. Vamana himself emphasises the
Arthagunas :

I. 2. 20, 22.

Thus these so-called Gunas comprehend Bandhagunas,
Alamkaras and Rasas. Demetrius, while describing each style,
gave each certain Bandhagunas, certain kinds of Alamkaras
and certain emotional features also.

Vamana defined his Gunas in such a way as to enable us to
take them as characteristics of the best style of poetry. Gu^as

144

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

^ which would pertain only to another Marga were not brought
in by him. So, he could define the Vaidarbhl as the best
style by reason of the fullness of all these Gunas in it, Guna
^dkalya. So it is that he says that Paka or maturity of
expression in Kavya is the clear and full presence, Sphutatva
and Sakalya, of these Gunas.

This view Vamana could hold by changing the meaning
of some Gunas. To the two Ritis, Vaidarbhi and Gaudi,
Vamana first added a third, the Pancali, another intriguing
geographical name. The GaudI in Vamana is not the bad
style in Dandin. It is a good style in which all the Gunas
of the Vaidarbhl are present ; only it sheds some sweetness
and delicateness and attains vigour and forcefulness. The
Madhurya and Saukumarya of the Vaidarbhi are replaced by
Samasabahulya and Ulbanapadas, with a greater degree of
Ojas and Kanti. The Pancali is the Vaidarbhi devoid of
Ojas and Kanti.* Of these three, Vamana asks poets to
practise and achieve the Vaidarbhi style of poetry.

^TT«T jniT, i

I. 2, 14-18.

From the three Ritis in Vamana, we pass to the four in
Rudrata. Rudrata mentions the Vaidarbhi and the Pancali
with a certain kinship which is found even in Vamana.
Rudrata however adds a fourth style to go along with the
Gaudiya. This new fourth Riti is the Latiya, another
geographical name. The four are thus given in two sets and
are, for the first time definitely dissociated from any poets of

* It is noteworthy how the Alankaradambara of the Gaudas
mentioned by Bana has not changed at all. .

I — Vamana. For the contradiction here on the
concept of Ojas and a full examination of Vamana’s Guijas, see
my S'mgara Prakas'a, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 293-299.

RITI

145

any parts of the country which their names refer to. Rudrata
relates them to the theme :

'O

While tracing the history of Riti, we can clearly see how
no writer ever missed the idea that the Vaidarbhi stood for
a certain sweetness while the GaudI was characterised by
force and vigour. When the geographical significance of the
Vaidarbhas alone favouring sweetness and its allied Gunas and
the Gaudas alone practising Aksaradambara, Ojas etc., was
lost, and all the RTtis were practised by all poets of all places,
the sweetness of the one and the vigour of the other w ere
thought of in connection with the theme by the same poet
who commanded both ways of writing. Visaya-aucitya began
to regulate the nature of Riti in the several parts of a poem.
The Rasas and the Arthas pertaining thereto have their own
quality of sweetness, vigour etc. These were studied by
Bharata, and by others following him, in the concept of Vrtti.
The Vrtti w^as applied from Drama to poetry.^ Kais'ikI is the
\'rtti of S'rngara and Arabhatl of Raudra, Vira, Bhayanaka
and Bibhatsa Rasas. To this Vh’tti, the Riti came to be
related. The sweetness and delicateness associated wdth the
Vaidarbhi made it possible to link it to the Kasdki Vrtti and
the S'rngara Rasa, S'rngara, Kas'iki Vrtti and the Vaidarbhi Riti
w^ent together always. The GaudI easily linked itself to Arabhatl
Vrtti and Rasas like Raudra. The Pancali and the Latiya occu-
pied middling positions, the former leaning more to the Vaidar-
bhi and the latter more to the GaudL Thus the emotional
situation came to determine the mode of expression. Hence

* See below chapter on the history of Vrtti in Kavya.

10

146

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

Bhoja treats of Ritis and Vrttis under Anubhava. The Vrtti
differs from Riti as more intimately connected with Rasa and
its ideas. To the Rasa, Riti was related on the basis of the
verbal expression, the S'aljg^sahghatana. In this stage, the
Gunas, Madhurya etc., which were still the constituents of
Riti, become mere Sahghatanadharmas. We find the Locana
saying while stating the Purvapaksa :

30 TT: I ^

I ” p. 6.

As Anandavardhana says, expression appropriate to Rasa
is Vrtti ; the expression of Artha is the Vrtti of Kais'iki etc. ;
the expression of S'abda is the Vrtti of Upanagarika etc.
These S'abda Vrttis Upanagarika etc. are the Ritis.

11 HI. 33.

I qrqqjT?iRT«r ^qgiiTRqjT^iT: i ” ibid., vrtti.

f^q\sfq 11 III. 53.

Mammata says under Anuprasa jatis :

q?qT,-^^T 'R: 11 IX. 3. K. Pra.

RiTI

147

ibid., vrtti.

#

S'irigabhupala defines Riti as Pada-vinyasa-bhangl,andhas three
Rltis Komala, Kathina and Mis'ra, — other names of Vaidarbhl,
Gaud! and PancalL A late work called S'rngarasara (Madras
MS.) follows S'ingaphupala completely, defines Riti as Pada-
vinyasabhangl, accepts three varieties of it, Vaidarbhl, GaudI
and Pancall, which it calls Komala, Kathina and Mis'ra.

Rajas'ekhara’s main chapter, the third, on Riti, called
Ritinirnaya, is lost. Still we gather some of his ideas on
Riti in his description of the legendary Kavyapurusa’s Avatara
in the beginning of his Kavya mimamsa, as also from his dramas.
In his Kavyamimamsa, Rajas'ekhara speaks of three Rltis in
the description of which he introduces a new distinguishing
feature, viz., the use of Yogavrtti in abundance, the same
to a less extent, and the use of Upacara. These are the
features Rajas'ekhara attributes to the three^ :

GaudI

PancMl

V'aidarbhi

These three Rltis, Rajas'ekhara relates to the Des'as whose
names they bear. He considers the Vaidarbhl as the best form
of poetic style. For he says that when the spouse of Sahitya-
vidya spoke to the Kavyapurusa in the Gauda style, he was ab-
solutely indifferent ; when she talked in the Pancali style, he was

^ Vide my article on Riti and Guna in the Agni Purana in
I.H.Q. X, iv, 767-779.

148

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

captivated only to a small extent, Isadvas'amvadikrta ; but
when both reached the Daksinades'a and she spoke in the
Vaidarbhi, he became ‘ Atyartham vas^amvada Rajas'ekhara
pays his tribute to Vaidarbhi poetry by making the Kavya-
purusa and Sahityavidya celebrate their nuptials in the capital
of the Vidarbhas, Vatsagulma.

I ^ ii;^4r^Rf0i;TFr i p. lo.

In the mahgalas'loka to his Karpuramanjarl, Rajas'ekhara
speaks of three Ritis, VacchomI, MagadhI and PahcalT. This
VacchomI is the Prakrt form* of Vatsagulml, a name for
Vaidarbhi given after the capital of the Vidarbhas, Vatsa-
gulma. Why the GaudI has been substituted here by the
MagadhI is not known.

In his Balaramayana, Rajas'ekhara speaks of the \'ai-
darbhl twice. In Act III, he says that the quality of Madhurya
is supreme in the Vaidarbhi and in Act X, that the Vaidarbhi
is characterised by Madhur3’a and Prasada and that Rasa is
dominant in it.

(а) I III. 14.

( б ) —

1

‘ Instead of thus deriving Vacchomi meaning Vaidarbhi from
Vatsagulmi, Vasudeva, author of the commentary on the Karpura-
mafijari says ;

P. 3. K. M. Edn.

RiTI

149

H III. 50.

=^t ^g«t I

IfHT^ 5[^ W4' ^

^s4 -g^ 3^ %.; 4 fqqq; 11 x. 74.

Dhanapala (first half of the 11th cent.) says in theTilaka-
manjari

K. M. edn. p. 130.

S'riharsa says in his Naisadha :

>4?51Tsfe 1 III. 116.

and again :

3'inJiTgRsn^ft R9l%5!^?rTfl1%

11 XlV, 91.

Nilakanthadiksita waxes eloquent upon Vaidarbhi and its
country in his Nalacarita nataka, Act III :

fRT: 3^tR: flf^I^I ^T I

R 59 ^ ^ ^^^3 II

RTf^5ft — gi^t'i 53i ^ I 3^:

^5*TrIT9T I RT t^iff fti%: I

‘ It is not known if by this word Kanta, Rajas'ekhara means
the gu^a Kanti in Dandin or uses it only in a general manner.

150

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

21T, T^T ^TgT

2n ^ JfsiTfq i

qWT'Tf^f^ T?

^^'sq>fsfq 5IT II

To return to Rajas'ekhara, he has the following additional
remarks about the literary habits of the poets of different
places :

^Tf^<iIT?7T: I ^<^1; I 3l4tgf^5fgqf?T-

^SPT I Kavyamimamsa, p. 22 .

The basis of each of these statements is not exactly known.
We know only, from Dandin, that the Gaudas loved Samasa
and that the remark about the Daksinatyas’ love for Taddhita
is borrowed from Patahjali. Further, we do not exactly know
what Rajas'ekhara means by mentioning separately Vaidarbhas
and Daksinatyas. Perhaps, the latter are people further south
or those in the south other than the V aidarbhas.

In a verse on poet Bana and poetess S'llabhattarika,
Rajas'ekhara gives a new definition of the Pancall, the
basis for which is also not known. He says in it that the
Pancall is the style in which S'abda and Artha are evenly
matched.

STJ. 11^^51 I

5fToilf^5 =? m II

In Act X of the Balaramayana, Rajas'ekhara ascribes a
peculiar style to Mithila. Thus he speaks of a Maithill style :

RITI

151

(Hi)

m ^*^11 11 S'!. 95.

The Maithili is here said to be characterised by three qualities :

(i) 91=a?^51^srq 3iq?qqi^qf^q;q(JIJi:/.e., avoiding Atyuktis

or flat hyperboles. This is Dandin’s and Bhoja's

Kanti of the Vaidarbhl :

qiiqfqfeqjHlcl 1

(ii) This seems to be sparse use of compounds.

{Hi) Yogaparampara ‘ which is given in his K. M.

as characterising the Gaudl.

The country of Mithila is nowhere mentioned in connection
with the Ritis, except perhaps by one writer, S'rlpada, quoted
by Kes'ava in Alahkaras'ekhara, who says that the Maithili
has, like the Vaidarbhl, few compounds.

to =q i

^TT(qT II

tol: q’^qi i

11 p. 6. K. M. 50.

^ Vide Appendix on Riti in the Agnipurana. The use of the
feature Yogavrtti, Upacara etc., in distinguishing styles is found
in Rajas'ekhara, Bhoja, Agnipurana and Bahurupamis'ra. The last
says in his comrpentary on the Das'arupaka (Mad. MS.) :

^ (1) qqre^iRqFqR (2) aq^t^Rai^ra: (3)

qraRiiq, (4) 3?33ra^^Ri (5) f^3q«irasqftfq i ”

The Sahitya mimamsa (TSS. 114) refers to the distinction of the
Ritis on the basis of these four features, but rejecting these,
accepts only the feature of Samasa, the first, as the basis of the
distinction, a view which follows Rudrata (p. 87). The work notes
also that Bhamaha has no fancy ^or the Ritis.

152

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

From this remark of S'rlpada, we understand that the Maithill
is the Magadhi/ the MagadhI which, along with the Pahcall
and the Vaidarbhi (Vacchoml), is mentioned by Rajas'ekhara
in his mahgalas'loka to the Karpuramahjari. Bhoja’s
Sarasvatikanthabharana gives an absurd definition of MagadhI
as a Khandarlti, formed when the Riti begun is left off!

ITITT^t I This MaghadhI may or may
not have been mentioned in the lost Riti chapter of the
Kavyamimamsa. But in the available portion, Rajas'ekhara
accepts only three Ritis and they are the Vaidarbhi, Gaudlya
and PancalL He says again on p. 31, of his K. M. :

'TraT^'t I

Bhoja added two more Ritis to Rudrata’s four, the Avanti-
ka and the MagadhI. The latter, as found in Rajas'ekhara,
S'rlpada and Bhoja, has been noticed already. It is only the
Avanti that is absolutely new. The classification and descrip-
tion of these in Bhoja (S. K. A.) are very mechanical, arbitrary
and unreal. It seems to be idle to examine Bhoja’s Latlya,
MagadhI and Avanti. Why this complacent creation of
geographical names was in fashion amongst these writers
cannot be guessed."

^ It may be suggested that the mention of Magadhi is due to
the author being a Buddhist ; Buddha spoke in Magadhi bhasa.

^ The following is a summary of the views of other minor
writers on Riti. The older Vagbhata accepts only the Vaidarbhi
and the Gaudi, one without any compounds and the other with
compounds (K. M. Edn. p. 61). The younger Vagbhata recognises
the three Ritis, Vaidarbhi, Gaudiya and Pahcali and defines them
as dominated respectively by theThree Guijas, Madhurya, Ojas and
Prasada (p. 31). S'ingabhupala (R. A. S.) accepts the Vai., the Gau.,

RiTI

153

The treatment of style on the basis of theme is not absent
from western criticism. Aristotle says that style should vary and
thus be in accordance with emotion. ‘‘ But the style expressive
of feeling suppose the case be one of assault in the style of a
man in passion ; — ” A style of exultation for praise ; a style

and the Pan. He borrows from Dandin for defining the Vaidarbhi;
the two differences here are that he makes the ‘ Rasa’ in Dandin’s
the 9 Rasas and takes the first case of Udara as
Dhvani. He calls the Vaidarbhi, Komala ; Gaudi, Kathina ; and
the Pahcali, Mis'ra. Leaving the Mis'ra, he contrasts the other
two; Komala X Kathina ; Asamasa XDirghasamasa ; PrasadaX
Asphutabandha ; AnisthuraksaraXNisthuraksara ; PrthakpadatvaX
Granthilatya. Under Mis'ra Ritis, he recognises a Riti for every
province, Andhra, Lati, Saurastrl etc. (p. 69). The Camatkara-
candrika of VisVes'vara (Mad. MS.), who wrote in S^ihga’s court,
casts away the old names, defines Riti as Padaghatana and gives
four kinds of it, the only feature of differentiation accepted being
Samasa-Asamasa, Madhyasamasa, Atidirghasamasa and Mis'ra
(p. 61. Mad. MS.). This position corresponds to Rudrata’s which
distinguishes Ritis on Samasa only, gives Vaidarbhi as the Riti of
the collocation free from compounds and gives three Ritis, Pancali,
Latiya and Gaudiya for the collocations with Laghu, Madhya and
Ayata Samasas. (II, 3-0). Vidyanatha considers Riti as

’ of the Kavya. See also Sahityakaumudi of Arkasilri, Mad.
MS. R. 2391, p. 11, I Tippabhupala, at the end of his

commentary on Vamana, considers Riti as the life-breath of poetry :

p. 193. V. V. Edn. The only later writer, who still called
Riti the Atman of poetry following Vamana, even when Rasa and
Dhvani were ruling for long, is Amrtatiandayogin who says :

ch. 5. Alaihkara Samgraha. This author treats of Rasa
and Dhvani also. Keilhorn’s Central Provinces’ Catalogue, p. 104,
mentions a work called “ Riti vrtti laksa^a ” by Vi tt hales' vara or
Vitthaladiksita, which would be the only post-Ananda work of its
kind, if it is a complete work by itself and is devoted exclusively
to a consideration of Riti along with the allied Vrtti. Even then
this tract must have dealt with Riti and Vrtti only as accepted in
the scheme of Rasa and Dhvani.

Simhadevagani, commentator on the Vagbhatalamkara, speaks,
in three verses at the end of his commentary, of Lati (Hasya),
P^cali (Karuna and Bhayanaka), Magadhi (Santa), Gaudi (Vira
and Raudra), Vacchomi (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhi

154

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'aSTRA

with submission if in pity.” But compound words and
plurality of epithets and foreign idioms are appropriate chiefly
to one who speaks under the excitement of some passion —
This style of a man in passion and a situation of assault, in
which Aristotle mentions compound words as proper is an
Ojas-dominated Riti, like Dandin’s GaudI, Samasabhuyistha.
Aristotle says elsewhere that “ of various kinds of words, the
compounds are best adapted to dithyrambs,” which are hymns
to Bacchus, the wine-god, enthusiastic, wild and boisterous.
Samasa gives the necessary Ojas to such a style.

Speaking of the style called ‘ the Elevated ’, Demetrius
says that there are certain subjects with the quality of elevation
to which that style is thence suited. Such are subjects like
scenes of battle. Surely these cannot be treated in the styles
called ‘ the Plain ’ and ‘ the Elegant ’. They must be rendered
in the styles called ‘ the Elevated ’ and ‘ the Forcible ’. De-
metrius speaks of the Varnadhvani of Ananda in this con-
nection, of how S'rutidusta, S'a, Sa, Ra etc., is promotive of
Raudra rasa. Demetrius remarks that though violence (S'ruti-
dusta) is a fault of composition, it is a necessary feature of the

(S'rngara). We do not know how Vacchomi is different from \"ai-
darbhi and how Vacchomi is suited to Bibhatsa and Adbhuta. In the
next verse he gives, following Rudrata, the Pancall as having two
or three words in a compound, Lati five or seven and Gaudi as
many words as possible in a compound. The last verse is very
puzzling ^ mfb i

SI91- ^i^*^*^** U Hamsamitthu’s Hamsa vilasa (Geak edn. Ixxxi)
speaks of the Lati (Hasya), Pancali (Karuna and Bhayanaka),
Magadhi (S'anta), Gaudi (Vira and Bhayanaka), Vatsoma des’od-
hhava (Bibhatsa and Adbhuta) and Vaidarbhi (S'fhgara). (ch. 46,
p. 269). The expression Vatsoma-des'odbhava is quite correct and
the editor need not have added a query here ; it means the Vacch-
omi which Rajas'ekhara’s Karpuramanjari mentions ; but the Hamsa
vilasa is wrong when it speaks of a Vaidarbhi in addition, for the
Vacchomi is the same as the Vaidarbhi ; and it is also wrong to
assign to the Vacchomi the Rasas Bibhatsa and Adbhuta.

RiTI

153

Forcible style, since “words hard to pronounce are forcible as
uneven roads are forcible.” Even as the Sanskrit Alamkarikas
speak of the VaidarbRi for S'rhgara rasa, Demetrius gives the
Elegant as the style for elegant and graceful subjects like
S'rhgara. He says : “ The materials of grace are the gardens
of nymphs etc., etc.” One of the two deciding factors in ^ the
Grand style ’, M. Murry says, is the theme, the other factor
being vocabulary. In connection with the theme, “ the nature
of the plot or muthos ”, he observes that the Grand style is
adopted if superhuman or majestic figures are involved. “ If
the characters of the plot are superhuman and majestic, it
seems more or less necessary that their manner of speech should
differ from that of ordinary dramatic poetry by being more
dignified — .” (p. 140, Problem of Style.) “ The poet height-

ens the speech of his superhuman characters in order that
they may appear truly superhuman.” (p. 141). This is clearly
a case of theme being a Niyamaka of style, a case of stand-
ardised style, “ a technical poetic device for a particular end ”
as Murry says of the Grand style. Thus, the linking of style
to theme is not absent from western criticism.

It is remarkable that there should be many points of
similarity between western writers on the subject of style and
Sanskrit Alamkarikas. M. Murry says in his Problem of Style :
“ In the course of the approach, I examined two qualities of
style which are not infrequently put forward as essential,
namely, the musical suggestion of the rhythm and the visual
suggestion of the imagery y and I tried to show that these were
subordinate. On the positive side, I tried to show that the
essential quality of style wdis precision : that this precision ^^■as
not intellectual, not a precision of definition, but of emotional
suggestion. . . p. 95. The musical qualities of rhythm

etc., in the word;Structure come under S'abdaguna and

156 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

S'abdalarhkara and the visual suggestion of imagery is Arthaguna
and Arthalamkara. These two, of the realm of Vacya vacaka,
are but the means, the vehicle, subordinate as Murry says.
The emotional suggestion of Murry is Rasadhvani and precision
thereof is served by Rasaucitya. The second Madhurya of
Dandin, viz., Anuprasa— qi^ ^ q^5 =q | I, 55.

II etc. corresponds to the fourth point

S3

mentioned by R. L. Stevenson in his essay on the Technical
Elements of Style, viz,, ' contents of the phrase.’ He makes
a detailed study and analysis and tabulates the consonantal
sound effects of many passages. He gives this ias a quality
of a master of style. Dandin says that when this S'rutyanu-
prasa is left and Ulbananuprasa is resorted to by the Gaudas,
harshness, Bandhaparusya and another flaw, S'aithilya,
result. The concatenation becomes hardly pronounceable —
Krcchrodya.

SigqrafqqT 1]

i i, 43-44.

II ibid., 60.

II ibid., 72.

Stevenson thus concludes his section on ‘ contents of the
phrase ’ : To understand how constant is this pre-occupation
of good writers, even where its results are least obstrusive, it
is only necessary to turn to the bad. There indeed you will
find cacaphony supreme, the rattle of incongruous consonants

RITI

157

only relieved by jaw-breaking hiatus, and whole phrases not to
be articulated by the powers of man.” R. L. Stevenson speaks
in this essay of his, of Samata, Vaisamya, Prasada and Caville,
the Anarthakapadas or Aprayojaka padas of Vamana which
hinder Prasada III, iii, 3.)

and Mahiman’s Avakara. Ideas found in Pater’s exposition of
style also have correspondences with ideas on Guna, Alamkara
and Alamkaraucitya found in Sanskrit works. Schopenhauer
has an essay on Authorship and Style, where, while dealing with
the latter subject, he gives certain concrete good features of a
good style of writing, judged to be good by reason of the pre-
sence of those features. According to him thoughts must get
their clearest, finest and most powerful expression ; thus, three
qualities are emphasised by him, clarity and beauty, the sum
total of these two, the power. In clarity is comprehended
chiefly the virtue of simplicity which means the expression of
thoughts “ as purely, clearly, definitely and concisely as ever
possible.” This is secured by the use of words which are precise
and which mean neither more nor less, which neither mean
the thing vaguely nor mean something different. Grammatical
precision and enough words are necessary. Clarity and gram-
mar must not be sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Says
Schopenhauer : “ On the other hand one should never sacrifice
clearness, to say nothing of grammar, for the sake of being
brief. . . . And this is precisely what false brevit}^

nowadays in vogue is trying to do, for writers not only leave
out words that are to the purpose, but even grammatical and
logical essentials.” Compare Dandin's Guna, Arthavyakti,
which he defines as Aneyarthatva. It is a grammatical and
logical necessity. In its absence, in the absence of words
grammatically and logically essential, we have the Dosa called
Neyarthatva.

158 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

I

JT f| II K. A. I, 73-75.

Not saying what must be said, out of a mistaken sense of
brevity, is a kind of ‘ Vacyavacana ’ according to Mahimabhatta.
Similarly, simplicity and precision are lost by adding things
and words which are unnecessary. This is Mahiman’s Ava-
cyavacana.

TO, ^SqT=E?TTO I P- TSS. edn.

These words are surplusage and are due to proverty of thought
or an ambition to write a grand style. These merely fill so
much of space still vacant in a verse, Padapurana. Schopen-
hauer says : If \vords are piled up beyond this point they
make the thought that is being communicated more and more
obscure. To hit that point is the problem of style and a
matter of discernment ; for every superfluous word prevents
its purpose being carried out.” This is exactly what Vamana
means by his Arthaguna Prasada which is the use of words
exactly sufficient for conveying the idea.

I III, ii, 3.

Other Sanskrit writers also have dealt with Aprayojaka
•epithets and words which do not nourish the idea but are

RITI

159

mere verbiage affected for attaining a grandiose style and
adopted to cover one’s poverty of idea and imagination. For,
these words, Mahiman calls and To Mahi-

man, these out-of-place words are the literary Apas'abdas.

sp: ” p. 121. TSS.

edn. Schopenhauer condemns indefiniteness, vague words and
enveloping trivial ideas in the most outlandish, artificial and
rarest phrases. ‘ ^ says Dandin ;

that Prasada is the use of well-known words which easily give
their sense ; that as against this, certain writers think that they
must look learned and, in the words of Schopenhauer, ‘ resent
the idea of their work looking too simple and resort to lexico-
graphical rarities. Schopenhauer speaks of two styles, one
good and the other bad, the former being characterised mainly
by simplicity, clarity and precision, and the latter by prolixity,
vagueness and word-pomp. He seems to describe only Dandin’s
Vaidarbhl and GaudL Of those who favour the latter,
Schopenhauer says that they ‘delight in bombast’, that their
writing is generally ‘ in a grand puffed up (Dipta of Dandin),
unreal, hyperbolic (Dandin’s Atyukti, the reverse of the
Saukumarya Guna) and acrobatic style.’ (Prahelikapraya
says Bhamaha). Dandin condemns not only Ulbana Anuprasa
(S'abdalamkara) and Yamaka which is Duskara and ‘ Naikanta
madhura ’, but also Arthalarhkara dambara. He prefers deli-
cateness, fineness and natural grace which give poetry a power
which no rhetorical ornament can ever impart to it.

JTT55fT?>sfq |

Compare Schopenhauer : “ An author should guard against using
all unnecessary rhetorical adornment, all useless amplification,

160

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

and in general, just as in architecture, he should guard
against an excess of decoration, all superfluity of expression, —
in other words, he should aim at chastity of style. Everything
redundant has a harmful effect. The law of simplicity and
naivete applies to all fine art, for it is compatible with what is
most sublime.”

It shall be considered now whether the linking of Riti to
the poet and his character and the idea of the infinity of Riti
is or is not present in Sanskrit Alarhkara literature. Aristotle
described only one good style and its qualities and contrasted
it with a bad style called the Frigid which overdid ornamenta-
tion. He refuted also others who spoke of different styles
such as the Agreeable. Fie argued that there was no end when
one began attributing to styles all sorts of ethical qualities like
restraint etc. An emphasis on the relation of style to the
author makes it impossible to speak of style in general or
define its features. Only a few concrete qualities related to
the actual S'abdas, the Sanghatana, Padas and Varnas, and to
the theme can be considered while defining or classifying style.
Thus, previous to Aristotle, some had spoken of the Agreeable
style. After Aristotle, some were speaking of three styles,
Grave, Medium and Attenuate, to suit the threefold purpose
of oratory, moving, pleasing and pleading. Just before Deme-
trius wrote, some held styles to be two, the Plain and the
Elevated. Demetrius added two more, the Elegant and the
Forcible. Plainness stood against elevation. A styde is
specially decorated for effect or is plain. From another point
of view, styles can be classified into two, the Elegant (or
graceful) and the Forcible. It is not one principle of classifi-
cation that gives us these four styles. The Plain may be
elegant or forcible ; the elevation given to a style may be
elegant or forcible. But naturally, plainness and elegance go

RiTI

161

together and so also elevation and force. The Plain and the
Elegant of Demetrius are represented by Vaidarbhl in Sanskrit.
The Elevated and the^ Forcible correspond to the good Gaudi
found envisaged in Bhamaha, the Frigid and the Affected styles
in Demetrius being the bad Gaudi in Dandin. The two corres-
pond to Sukumara and the Vicitra Margas in Kuntaka.
Saukumarya and Ojas — Plainness and Elegance, Elevation and
Force — these finally give us two Ritis. Bhatta Nrsimha, a com-
mentator on Bhoja’s Sarasvatlkanthabharana (Madras MS.) says
that of the Gunas of Dandin, two are important, Saukumarya
and Ojas, as being the Asadharana gunas of the two Margas.

“ (2^) gq: 3 qm:

^^RCriT: I p. H. Mad. MS. This final analysis of style into two
is neither impossible nor absurd. While treating of the Formal
Element in Literature in Ch. IV of his work ‘ Some Principles
of Literary Criticism ’, Winchester has the following : “ But
while individuality is not to be classified, it may be said that
there are, in general, two opposite tendencies in personal ex-
pression : on the one hand to clearness and precision ; on the
other to largeness and profusion. The difference between the
two may be seen by comparing such poetry as that of Mathew’
Arnold w ith that of Tennyson or such prose as that of News-
man with that of Jeremy Taylor. Minds of one class insist
on sharply divided ideas, on clearness of image, on temper-
ance, and precision of epithet. Their style we characterise as
chaste or classic. The other class have a great volume of
thought, but less well-defined ; more fervour and less temper-
ance of feeling, more abundant and vivid imagery, more w ealth
of colour, but less sharpness of definition. Their thoughts
seem to move through a haze of emotion and often through a
lush grow th of imagery. They tend to be ornate and profuse
in manner, eager in temper ; they often produce larger and
deeper effects, but they lack restraint and suavity. It is a
contrast not peculiar to literature, but running through all
n

162 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

forms of art. . . . The one makes upon you the impres-

sion of greater delicacy, temperance, charm : the other, the
impression of greater mass, complexity, power. We are not
called upon to pronounce either manner absolutely better than
the other The last sentence here echoes Bhamaha's
attitude towards the distinction of style into Vaidarbhl and
GaudI and the claim of superiority for the former. From this
passage, it is also seen that despite the infinite variety of
writers’ personality, it is yet possible and sensible too to find two
broad divisions, one favouring virtues of subdued beauty and
the other, exhuberance ; that a subjective and personal basing
of style does not preclude the possibility of a classification or
definition of style. In this passage of Winchester again, it
seems as if Kalidasa’s style is described and contrasted with
that of Bhavabhuti and Bana ; it looks as if good Vaidarbhl and
a good handling of the Gaud! are considered here ; we are
clearly reminded of Kuntaka’s two Margas, the Sukumara and
the Vicitra, the one dominated by beauty that is mainly natural^
Sahajas'obha, and the other by ornamentation, Aharyas'obha,
the one in Svabhava-ukti and Rasa-ukti, and the other in
Vakrokti, the one displaying greater S'akti and the other, greater
Vyutpatti. While the former style is a rare gift, it is very
difficult to be successful in the latter ; for the path of orna-
mentation and elevation has many pitfalls, and frigidity, arti-
ficiality and ornateness are easily committed. Says Kuntaka :

TRIT; I

II ' V. J., I. 43.

‘ Strangely en oujh, Padmagupta calls the Vaidarbhi the
‘ sword-edge-path,’ —

HfW: II Navasahasankacarita, I. 5.

RiTI

163

Vide Vrtti also p. 58. Hence it is that critics do not favour
it. It is the deterioration of Vicitramarga that is Daiidin’s
Gaudi. It is because of this difficulty that Demetrius’s Elevated
and Forceful styles become, in the hands of lesser artists, the
Frigid and the Affected styles. Hence it is that the critics
always prefer the former. Says Winchester : “ But it would
seem that, in literature at least, the classic manner is the
culmination of art. Precision, in the wide sense, must be the
highest virtue of expression ; and it is this precision, combined
with perfect ease, that constitutes the classic manner.”
“ Individual tastes may justly differ; but the ultimate verdict
of approval will be given to that style in which there is no
overcolouring of phrase, no straining of sentiment ; which
knows how to be beautiful without being lavish, how to be
exact without being bald ; in which you never find a thicket
of vague epithet.” It is of this style, called by him Sukumara,
that Kuntaka says :

II V. J., I. 29.

Kuntaka is the greatest exponent of the Riti. That it
comprehends all aspects of expression has been well realised
by him. He casts off the old names which have geographi-
cal associations, dead for a long time, and forges new
nomenclature on the basis of a fundamental classification of
the manners of expression, on the basis of the more prevail-
ing tendencies among masters in Sanskrit literature. He also
shows how each Marga or Riti or style is characterised not by
certain Bandhagunas only, but by a certain attitude in using
Alankaras and delineating Rasas also. Above all, he is the
only Sanskrit writer who realised very strongly the final basis

164

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

of Style in the character of the poet and consequently related
Riti to the writer.

Kuntaka first refers to the geographical Ritis, Vaidarbhl,
Gaud! and Pancali. He says that old writers give these three
Ritis and call them Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. This
point of view Kuntaka objects to, for styles of poetry depend-
ent for their origin on poetic genius and craftsmanship, upon
S'akti and Vyutpatti in poets, cannot be spoken of like certain
kinds of ‘ Des'acara ’ like marriage, permissible or obtaining
in certain parts of the land.

«Tiq^ I I fw 51^^

fg?ItTTJn^Frfg 55?TTgT^;

P. 46

Then Kuntaka criticises the view that holds these three
Ritis as Uttama, Madhyama and Adhama. If the Gaudi and
the Pancali are not good, why treat of them in the S'astra^ ?

I ^ ^ m]-

I P. 46.

RITI

165

If however the names Vaidarbhi etc., are meant only as
names and do not mean any geographical connection with
poetry, Kuntaka has no -objection.

JT I

Kuntaka then gives his idea of Riti that it is based on the
character of the poet, Kavisvabhava. He accepts that this
Kavisvabhava is infinite, but generally speaking, he says that
there can be indicated three main types.

i p. 47.

The three styles thus indicated by him are the graceful, the
Striking and the mixed, Sukumara, Vicitra and Madhyama.
The Sukumara is the style of certain poets of a similar tem-
perament and it is suited to certain situations. Similarly the
Vicitra. The third combines the features of both the styles.
All the three are beautiful and have their own charm. It
is absurd to suppose that one is good, the other bad or the
third passable.

I Q:33(|q=5^qT-

^ This paragraph is concluded by Kuntaka in the words :

On the basis of this, Dr. S. K. De
says on p. 386 of his Skr. Poe. Vol. II that Kuntaka was an advo-
cate of the Alariikara school and meant to make light of the Riti.
Fot a correct statement of the Kuntaka’s view on Riti, however,
see the same writer’s Introduction to his Edn. of the Vakrokti Jivita.
pp. xxxii-xxxiii.

166

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'lSTRA

5f?n I P. 47.

Raleigh, in his book on Style, speaks of the ‘ soul ’ in
style. He quotes Pater who says “ As a quality of style, soul
is a fact.’’ What is this soul ? Raleigh interprets it as ‘ spirit*.
He says in this connection : ‘ Ardent persuasion and deep
feeling enkindle words, so that the weakest take glory.’ This
is the quality of sincerity he speaks of earlier. Analysed, this
resolves into an emphasis on Rasa and the writer’s attention
to its supreme expression. There is another sincerity which
is artistic perfection and which sometimes modifies the sincer-
ity of emotion. In the former case, the poet is true to Rasa
and Bhava, and only to them. In the latter case, he thinks of
how best to present that feeling in a setting of words. This
anxiety for artistic perfection calls forth style, figures etc.
Those who are impelled by the latter, the artistic sincerity, are
followers of the Vicitra Marga. Those that are absorbed in
the Rasa and Bhava and present them in their own glory are
followers of the Sukumara Marga. Ideas and words for these
sprout out of an ever fresh imagination ; there is always an
enough ornament which is effortless; the natural beauty of
things has been preferred there for artificial adornment ; at
every step establishing an emotional appeal, it is of unpre-
meditated grace.

: II

RiTI

167

^ m 11

JR IT^T: I

ffRont^fltT^nJl^^^ ^?T: 11 V. J., I. 25-29.

The main feature of this style is that whatever beauty it
possesses is all natural, Sahaja ; poetic genius and imagination
and not pure craftsmanship and scholarship form the basis of
this style. The things of the world and Rasa and Bhava are
given in all the beauty of their very nature and this first-
instance-expression is not refashioned in the w^orkshop of figure.

That such a definition of style is all-comprehensive need
not be pointed out. But Kuntaka also speaks of certain Gunas
as characterising his Margas. Of the Sukumara Marga he says,
Madhurya is the first Guna. It is defined as the un-compound-
ed use of words and a certain grace of the S'abda and Artha —
and The insistence

on Madhurya as the use of Asamastapadas * is for securing
clarity of the idea. The words of emphasis, heightenings and
low^erings, in a sentence can have their point only if the words
remain separate ; their emphasis is lost when they are huddled
into a compound. Samasa always hampers understanding.
Says Mahimabhatta :

' Cf. Vamana, III. i. 20. qTf!fq[ I . .

^ I P* 79. V. V. Press Edn.

168 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'iSTRA

II

^T*5F«I<Tmsikt I

m — V. V., p. 53.

The next Guna of the Sukumara Marga is Prasada, the
quality by virtue of which the idea is given to us without any
difficulty. This Prasada refers to both Rasa and the idea or
Artha which forms its v^ehicle. The idea may be expressed
with Vakrata to give point to it but such turn or deviation
adopted should not obscure the idea or take it into the dark.'
Here also the use of the uncompounded words and words of
which meanings are well knowm,

are the primary means. The third Guna is Lavanya^
which refers more to the S'abdas and the Varnas, which
should have an indescribable beauty floating over them. Any
kind of S'abdalamkara adopted for this purpose should have
been done with ease and done with moderation. Ere the words
as messengers of ideas deliver their meanings to the mind, their
Lavanya affects the sensibilities of the responsive reader.
Similar in nature and borrow ed from the same field is the fourth
Guna given by Kuntaka, Abhijatya. A certain softness of texture
and delicateness of words making the mind feel them form
this quality of Abhijatya, a quality pre-eminently realisable
only by the Sahrdaya and hardly describable in so many w’ords.

'V.J., I. 31.

* Cf. Dandin. and Bhamaha, II. 1.

mii ^ I ^ u

RiTI

169

The Vicitra Marga of Kuntaka is a style dominated by
Vakrata. It is a flashy style, gleaming all over with gold dust.
It is intricately worked and wrought with design and gem,
Alaihkara leads to Alarhkara ; ere one effect is off our mind,
another is on.

II V. J., I. 35.

A style which reminds us of V^almlki's description of
Ravana’s Puspaka— ‘ ^ ’ and ‘

every bit worked with care and craft and at
every step equally striking wdth some speciality.^ The des-
cription of this Marga also, as made by Kuntaka, is all-
comprehensive, referring to every aspect of expression. (V.

1, 34-43, pp. 56-66).

Though Kuntaka has indicated two major varieties of
style, he is fully aware that style is not classifiable. He says
that Marga or style is infinite in variety and subtle in differ-
ence ; for it is based on the poet’s nature.

I =51 i

^F^TT ^ ifRK^JfF2fT?RfW: I

I

V. J.. p. 46.

’ Adopting a Sanskritic comparison, we can say that the Suku-
mara Marga is like the beautiful Kulahgana, and the Vicitra Marga
like the brilliant Gaijika.

170 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'aSTRA

I Ibid., p. 47.

Though character is subtle and infinite, differing with each
person, it is possible to say that there are three classes, the
Sukumara and the Vicitra types and that of those who have
both in varying proportions. The Sukumara nature of a writer
affects this Vyutpatti and practice of writing which becomes
stamped with that quality. Vyutpatti and Abhyasa bring out
his Svabhava. The poet’s Svabhava is clearly expressed in the
writing. Is this not the expression of the writer’s personality,
his soul ? What else does Kuntaka say in the words :

sfw 3HT-

^ I V. J., p. 47.

Again Kuntaka emphasises the infinite variety of style and its
basis in the author’s nature. He takes the well-known poets
and assigns them to the different styles. Matrgupta, Mayuraja
and Manjira are exponents of the third combined Marga.
Their poetry has a natural grace which they have rendered
attractive with some decoration also. Kalidasa and Sarvasena
<the author of the Harivijaya, mentioned by Ananda in Ud.
Ill) are masters in the Sukumara Marga, their poetry being
the product of natural genius and appealing by their natural
beauty. Banabhatta is the greatest representative of the
Vicitra Marga and Bhavabuti and Rajas'ekhara also belong
to this class.

STR 3?r:

RITI

171

f 4 ??f 5r^;TT%»TiTTf^f I ^51

sn^ ^fsnoi^ w{\^ spvnjft;^-

(?) I cl^T?^ll!?l^|5r I

^ I ^ gsTWff^

I V. J., p. 71.

Similar is the view of Dandin also. He describes two
Margas that can clearly be distinguished, for, he says, Ritis
are infinite and their differences very subtle. So subtle is the
character of one’s writing from that of another that it is as
difficult to point out their differences as to describe in so
many words the difference between various kinds of sweetness,
of sugarcane, milk etc. Dandin says :

31^^^ fw *nn: w^' "TOrq; i

II I. 40.

cTSlTfq 5T ^^Tl?RTi II I. 101-2.

S'aradatanaya says on Riti in his Bhavaprakas'a :

5R^RR3iTf^: I

3IFRRT?!; II

Ch. I, pp. 11-12, lines 21-24

172 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

^ II

Ibid., p. 12, lines ^-2*

As explained by Bhoja,

irarf^fd i s. k. a., ii. 17.

Riti is the characteristic way of a writer. The other words
used as synonyms are Gati, Marga, Panthah and Prasthana.
In Tamil and especially while our Rasikas appreciate our
musicians, we hear of the particular Pantha, Va^i or Nadai
of each artist. All these words mean style. A poet of mark
has a style. To posses a distinct style is to be a poet of mark.

q fqqj ii 1. 10.

II I. 17.

— Nllakantha Diksita, Gahgavatarana Kavya.

APPENDIX

RiTI IN THE Agni Purana

The Alarikara section in the Agni Purana is a hopelessly
loose heaping of all sorts of ideas taken from this and that writer
and does not deserve to be treated seriously as representing
any systematic tradition. Dr. De supposes in his Sanskrit
Poetics that it represents a systematic tradition which stands
separate from that of the orthodox Kasmirian writers and
which is followed by Bhoja. It is not a Purana compiler of
such a nature that hints at new paths in special S'astras and
surely the compiler who borrows from Tantravarttika, Bhartr-
mitra, Bharata, Dandin and Ananda, may well borrow from
Bhoja, who takes credit for the new Rasa theory propounded
by him in his S'rhgaraprakas'a. The truth therefore is that
the Alahkara section in the Agni Purana is definitely later
than Bhoja, from whom it borrowed not only the Ahahkara-
Abhimana idea of Rasa expounded in his S'rhgaraprakas'a and
already referred to in his Sarasvatikanthabharana, V. 1, but
also some S'abdalahkaras and other ideas.

The Alahkara section of the Purana is spread over eleven
chapters, (chs. 337 to 347). The first chapter deals with
Kavya and of it, the Purana says that Rasa is the life, S'l.
357133 places Rasa above Vagvaidagdhya which can be said
to be identical with the concept of Vakrokti as applying
generally to poetic expression as such and as a whole. The

174

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

next chapter deals with drama. The third is completely
devoted to Rasa and from this third chapter up to S'loka 17
of the sixth chapter, the subject dealt with is Rasa. For>
the fourth which speaks of Ritis and Vrttis, deals with
Buddhyarambha-Anubhavas ; the fifth which is called

deals with S'arirarambha Anubhavas, such as
the Alankaras of the Alambanas in the shape of damsels, the
glances etc. ; and the first part of the sixth again deals with
Rasa. The rest of the sixth, and the seventh treat of S'abda-
lankara and are followed by the eighth speaking of Artha-
lankara. Chapter 345 describes Ubhayalankara, chapter 346,
Gunas and the last chapter (347), Dosas.

Vrtti is Cesta and Pravrtti is Vesa or Aharya. Riti is
Vacana or speech.^ Says Rajas'ekhara, and following him
Bhoja also in his S'r. Pra. :

I (K. M., p. 9)

Vrtti is dramatic action as such and one of its varieties
is Bharatl which however, being speech, is the Vacikabhinaya
which is examined from the point of view of various Ritis.
Aharya is invariably Nepathya, dress and make-up. No
doubt, it forms a part of Vrtti, even as Rlti forms a part of
Vrtti. We find the graceful dress included in the definition of
the Kais'iklvrtti — ^ etc. In graceful action, graceful

dress also is comprehended. Therefore Vrtti and Pravrtti are
intimately related, as Shakespeare also says, ‘ apparel oft pro-
claims the man.' As the Visnudharmottara says, Pravrttis are
Aharya which is dress, is Pravrtti — Vesavinyasa.

‘ See my article on Vrttis in JOR., Madras, vol. VI, part 4 ;
vol. VII, parts 1 and 2.

’ Vide JOR., Madras, vol. VII, part. I, pp. 49-51.

RITI

17S

These three, Riti, Vrtti and Pravrtti (speech, action and dress)
are all Anubhavas, and are classed as by Bhoja

in chapter XVII of bis S'rngara Prakas'a.* S'ihgabhupala
also follows Bhoja and says in his RAS., I, p. 64 :

Following Bhoja’s S'r. Pra. the Purana also considers the
three, Riti, Vrtti and Pravrtti as Buddhyarambhanubhava :

? g(?l) I

rfR I1 (339/53, 54.)

The Buddhyarambhas; Riti, Vrtti and Pravrtti, form the
subject-matter of the next chapter (ch. 340). In ch. 339, sds.
44-45 begins the treatment of Anubhavas :

3TR»»T ^ ^ 11“*

S'ls. 46-50 describe qJT s'ls. 51-53 (first

half), 5155T s4s. 53 (second half), 54 and ch. 340

describe and ch. 341, as is said in its first verse,

describes 1 These are all Anubhavas and are called

Abhinayas. From the point of view of the four kinds of
Abhinaya, these are re-distributed and the study of Anubhavas
closes with s'l. 2 of ch. 342, after which some general
aspects of Rasa are taken up. Vagarambha is Vacika ; Mana-
arambha is Sattvika (Sattva— manas ; ff

says Bhoja in his S'r. Pra., ch. XI) ; S'arirarambha is Ahgika

* pp. 208-236, vol. Ill, Mad. MS. ; vide also S'aradatanaya
who follows Bhoja. Bha. Pra., pp. 11-12.

^ See Bhoja. SKA., V, S'l. 40, p. 477.

176

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

and Pravrtti which is one of the three Buddhyarambhas is
Aharya/ What about the other two Buddhyarambhas, Riti
and Vrtti ? Vrtti pertains to all action. Its first variety
called Bharati and the Buddhyarambha called Riti are Vaci-
kabhinaya and are to be taken along with the Vagarambhas,
Alapa etc. According to the traditional meanings, Arabhati
will be Ahgikabhinaya, Sattvatl Vrtti will be Sattvikabhinaya
and Kais'iki Vrtti will be all Abhinaya that is graceful. But
to adopt the more correct meanings of these concepts, as
explained in my paper on the Vrttis in the JOR., Sattvatl will
go with Sattvikabhinaya and Arabhati and Kais'iki will go with
all Abhinayas, forceful and graceful respectively.

Chapter 340 of the Parana is called Ritinirupana. Cor-
rectly speaking, it must be called

for, in the foregoing chapter, nnd

have been dealt with and its succeeding chapter (ch.
341) treats of As it is, it treats of not only Ritis but

of Vrttis also. This is the smallest chapter in the whole
section and of its eleven verses, the first four are concerned
with Ritis. Then begins a treatment of Vrttis. S'l. 5 enume-
rates the four Vrttis ; s4. 6 defines Bharati and up to the first

II 342/2

This verse does not mean that Riti, Vrtti and Pravrtti, which
are the three Buddhyarambhas, are Aharya. How can speech and
action be two varieties of dress ? One cannot contend that the
Purana has a new theory to expound viz,y dress means speech and
action also. The last part of the verse really mean^that Pravrtti,
which is one of the Buddhyarambhas, is the Aharyabhinaya
f5ig, ?JT gT 0- Even such a

clumsy text as the Agni Purana cannot mistake Aharya as any
thing but dress. See also IHQ, *X, no. 4, 1934, pp. 767-779, where
I have reconstructed and interpreted many of the passages in this
section of the PuraQa.

RiTI

177

half of s'l. 10, we have the varieties of Bharati
described. Then there are two lines, one giving a short defini-
tion of Arabhatl and the other abruptly stopping in the midst
of the enumeration of the varieties of Arabhatl. There still
remains to be treated the fourth variety of Arabhatl, the
whole of the Kais'ikI and the Sattvati Vrttis and the whole
subject of Pravrttis. Therefore I think that the text of the
chapter as printed in the Anandas'rama Series, is incomplete.*
The whole of the Alahkara S'astra is included in the
Vaeikabhinaya section of the Natya S'astra which is one fourth
of drama, being the Bharati VTtti. This Bharati Vrtti is
studied and analysed into Laksanas, Gunas and Alamkaras.
Closely akin to these is a composite study of the Bharati
Vrtti in terms of Ritis or Margas, which was attempted at a
later time. Still another study of the Bharati Vrtti is what
Bharata gives us'in chapter XXIV as the twelve ‘ Margas of
the Vaeikabhinaya. The expression in the shape of Alapa,
Vilapa etc. can itself be examined from the point of view' of
Laksanas and Alahkaras and of the Ritis of Dandin. There is
little difference betw-een the text of a drama and a Kavya.
The Vaeikabhinaya portion is often treated as Kavya. All

ITT*!? f| qTfiTlfiTiTTR??^g!T; It

N. S'. XXIV. 49-57.

Here, if one wants verbal identity in the shape of the word
Margay one can have it, but much value is not attached to this fact
that Vilapa etc. are also called Margas. Anyway such occurrence
of the word Mctrga in Bharata is to be noted by one interested in
the history of the word Marga, as it is applied as a synonym of Riti.

12

178

somf: concepts of ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

Kavya is drama of the Bharati Vrtti. That and the

realm of PlU flint are identical and that the Ritis as pointed
out in a study of a drama’s Vacikabhinaya are identical with
the Ritis pointed out in a Kavya will be plain on a persual of
S'ihgabhupala’s treatment of Ritis in his R.A.S.

The question of what things constitute the differentia
of the various Ritis, I have tackled in the main chapter
on Riti above and in the chapter on the * History of
Gunas ’ in my work on Bhoja’s S'rhgaraprakas'a. Also, in
the third instalment of my paper on Vrttis in the J.O.R.,
VII. 2, I have pointed out some facts which are relevant to
this discussion. An analysis of Dandin’s Gunas shows the
existence in them of such things as Alahkara, Samasa and
metaphorical usage. According to Rudrata the Ritis are
Samasa Jatis. Vaidarbhi is the collocation with no compound
while the compounded collocation, according to the number
of w’ords compounded, produces the Pahcall, the Latlya or
the Gaudl. Another line of thought show's us the develop-
ment of Ritis as Anuprasa Jatis, varieties of Vrttyanuprasa.
These appear in Bhamaha, are clearly formulated in Udbhata’s
K.A.S.S., and are called merely Vrttis by Ananda. By the time
we reach Mammata, the three Vrttyanuprasa J atis become ident-
ical w ith the three Ritis, viz., Vaidarbhi, Pahcall and Gaudl.
This line of enquiry lights up the early history of Riti and in
Dandin’s treatment of it we find all these ideas. For, w hat is
Dandin’s Samadhi Guna, if it is not metaphorical usage ? What
is Ojas, if it is not the Samasa on the basis of which Rudrata
defines the Ritis ? Again, what is the first S'abda variety of
Dandin’s Madhurya except the sweetness born of Anuprasa,
on the basis of which S'abdalahkara, three Vrttis are born and
w^hich eventually get identified with the three Ritis ? (Dandin,
I, 51-58.) As a matter of fact, the subject of Anuprasa is

RiTI

179

dealt with by Dandiii only in chapter I as comprehended in
his Madhurya Giina of one variety pertaining to S'abda (for,
of the other Madhiir^^a of Agramyta, we have the two sub-
divisions of S'abda and Artha) and not in the chapter on
vS'abdalahkara, a fact which has misled Mr. K. S. Ramaswamy
Sastri ^ to say that Aniiprasa S'abdalahkara is absent from
Dandin. Even Yamaka is touched here by Dandin but is
left out for special treatment in the S'abdalahkara section.
And what is this S'abda Madliiirya of Dandin, viz. Anuprasa,
except S'abdalahkara ? When we come to Vamana, we have
even Rasa coming in as constituting the Guna of Kanti of
Artha, in the study of Riti. Therefore it cannot be said
simply and naively , that some absolute entity called Guna,
whicli is quite different from Alahkara etc. defines Riti in
Dandin and that other writers and their definitions of Ritis in
other w crds and other ways differ wholly from Dandin’s.

The Agni Purana borrows its definitions of the Ritis
from Bhoja, (chapter XVII, on Anubhavas, in the S'r. Pra.),
where Bhoja himself borrows from Rajas'ekhara. Later than
these, Balmrupa Mis'ra, in his commentary on the Das'arupaka,
(Mad. MS.) reproduces these definitions of the Ritis with the
mention of Blioja’s name. The Kavya Mimamsa says :

1. — srqiT

•?rT I (p. S.)

2 . — ^

^TT ftT%; I (p. 9.)

3. — qci; — ^

?fT 1^4! ftra: 1 (p. 9.)

^ See his Sanskrit Introduction to his edition of Udbhata’s
K.A.S.S. with Tilaka’s commentary in the Gaek. series (p. 19).

180

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

To these three, Bhoja adds the fourth Latlya which the
Purana takes. In the above definitions of the three Ritis,
three factors count — Samasa, Anuprasa and Yaugika or
Aupacarikaprayoga. Of these, Samasa (of Rudrata’s Ritis)
is the Guna of Ojas ; Anuprasa (of the Vrttis which are finally
identified with the three Ritis) is one of the two kinds of

r

of Dandin ; and Upacara mentioned by Rajas'ekhara
is Dandin’s Samadhi, metaphorical expression, personification
etc. There is however no trace of Yoga Vrtti as a part of the
laksana of Riti in Dandin. Dandin has also said that Vaidarbhl
has a kind of Anuprasa, has something like for it

is a discriminate employer of such varieties as and

that it is GaudI which loves Anuprasa as such and Samasa as
such. The Vaidarbhl of Dandin also has little or no com-
pound. This Bhoja follows in the Anubhava-chapter in his
S'r. Pra. (chapter XVII) and the Agni Purana borrows from
him when it says that

1. Pancali is ^nd

2. Gaudiya is and

3. Vaidarbhl is srgfiT; or

and and

4. Latlya is and

(S'ls. 2 Ay

^ In the definition of the Latlya, the following line is
printed wrongly : I

It must be thus corrected : I

and it means that the Latiya does not have too much of meta-
phorical expression.

RiTI

181

Bhoja’s definitions are as follows :

1. 3q=^?if%JT^,

qT3[TgRT^fqra, q=q; ^?t i

2. 3Tf%i5(^^HqT?T, ^r^3q=qT?lf%it^i:,

^Ti^T%q?^qniT^ m i

3. , 3i3q=qRif%*i^i, , f«n-

^TgqwqiRI, m 1^ I

4. ?tT^5q=qRqi?,

jqTgqTRq^ffi, q=q:, m ^stqi i

S'r, Pra. Mad. MS., chapter XVII, vol. Ill, pp. 212-6.

The word Vigraha in the Agni Parana stands for Samasa ;
for, it is for a Samasta word that we give Vigraha.

Thus the characteristics which are given in the definitions
of RTtis in Rajas'ekhara, Bhoja and the Agni Parana are not
wholly unrelated to Gunas and these Gunas themselves are
not certain absolute entities standing apart. The Upacara is
Dandin’s Samadhi and the feature of Vigraha or Samasa
comes under Dandin’s Ojas. Therefore it cannot be held that
‘‘ the Ritis in the Purana have not been distinguished from
one another by the presence or absence of certain poetic
excellences (Gunas).” ^

See also my S'rngara Prakas'a, vol. I, pt. I, pp. 198-9.

THE HISTORY OF VKTTI IN KA\ VA

A Survey of the concept of \>tti in the realm of Natya
where it originated was made by me in an article entitled the
Vrttis in the J. O. R, Madras, vols. VI and VII. But like many
other concepts, the Vrtti passed into Kavya also, experiencing
many vicissitudes which form the subject of this chapter. If
the concept is studied in relation to Kavya, /.c., S'rav}’a Kavya,
in Alahkara S'astra, this is what we must logically expect :
The whole field of S'ravya Kavya is Bharati Vrtti. Descrip-
tions of lov^e, evening, moonlight, seasons etc., must be Kaisaki
and of war etc., ArabhatL Sattvatl, if we accept it as the name
of action, is as absent from Kavya as Bharat! is present.
Bharati or the text of the whole Kavya will be modified,
according to the situation, by Kais'ikI and Arabhatl, producing
two main varieties of Bharati going by the names Vaidarbhl
Ritl and Gaudiya Riti. The concept of Guna must here be.
related to these. The two and the only two Gunas necessarv"
here for classification are Madhurya and Ojas, characterising
the two extremes of SYiigara and Raudra. The Madhurxai
Guna, the Kais'ikI Vrtti and the Vaidarbhl Riti will go to-
gether on the one hand as distinguishing certain Rasas, Iti-
vrttas and verbal expressions, and similarly the Ojas*Guna,
the Arabhatl Vrtti and the Gaud! Riti will go together as
characteristics of a different set of poetic conditions. Guna
will be the nature of the Rasa ; Vrtti, the nature of Vastu
or ideas or Itivrtta ; and Riti, the nature of the expression of

THE HISTORY OF VRTTI KaVYA

183

the first and the second in suitable words. This, in brief,
must be the simple and strictly logical position of Vrtti in
Kavya. But, in actual history, its career is not found to be so
simple.

In poetics we have many concepts having the name Vrtti.
The only one Vrtti with which we have nothing to do here is
the the significatory capacities of words. The other

concepts called Vrtti are three, viz.y (1) varieties of alliteration,
(2) varieties of compounded collocation,
and (3) the old Vrttis, KaisakI etc. of Natya.

Bhamaha, in K. A. II. S'ls. 5-8, speaks of three kinds of
Anuprasa. He first gives Anuprasa as the repetition of the
same or similar' sound — and illustrates it by an
alliteration with the sounds repeated. (S'L 5.) In S'l. 6,
he gives another variety of Anuprasa as being held by others.
It is called and is illustrated by the liquid allitera-
tions of In S'l. 8, Bhamaha says that still some others

speak of another variety of Anuprasa called which

is illustrated by a repetition of syllables. Thus it is clear that
Bhamaha mentions at least three kinds of Anuprasa, the first
nameless, the second and the third When

this is so, we are not able to understand how, to point out the
addition made b}' Udbhata, both his commentators say that
Bhamaha recognised only two kinds of Anuprasa.

I Pratiharenduraja.

ik ^ i Tilaka.

Udbhata gives three kinds of Anuprasa (I-l and 3-20), viz.,
i.e, ftqgciw and 55ISI3qT?T. Of these the

184 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

last is the same as mentioned by Bhamaha ; the first is new and
as regards the second, it is partially available in Bhamaha.
The second is given as having three varieties in the K. A. S. S.,
the varieties being called Vrttis by Udbhata, from which
this second Anuprasa is named later as Vrttyanuprasa. He
names the varieties or Vrttis as Parusa, Upanagarika and
Gramya. The last is the same as the Gramyanuprasa in
Bhamaha and is illustrated by a similar verse of ^ ^ — allitera-
tion’. The Upanagarika is illustrated by an alliteration with
the soft and nasal sound combinations like This is perhaps
the same as the first variety cf Bhamaha. The Parusa
is newly mentioned by Udbhata as a case of Anuprasa with
S'a, sa, repha, ta etc., i,e,, harsh sounds. Now, the appropriate
manipulation of alliterating sounds helps Rasa certainly. The
repetition of harsh sounds and the Parusa Vrtti produced by
their Anuprasa, help Vira, Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas. The
Upanagarika, using conjunct consonants with nasals and the
Gramya also to some extent, help S'riigara. Therefore
Pratiharenduraja explains Vrtti as the use of such sounds as
suit and suggest Rasa.

The first Vrtti is so called because of its harshness, the
second because of its being refined like the city-bred dam-
sel and the third, because it is all soft like an unsophisticated
country-bred damsel. The third Vrtti, Gramya, is also called
Komala, signifying the other extreme of the first, viz,, Purusa.

Anandavardhana is very well acquainted with these Vrttis
of Udbhata. He considers them to be the result of the Gunas,
Madhurya etc. in the collocation. (I, pp. 5-6.) In Uddyota

THE HISTORY OF VRTTI IN KlVYA

185

three he again mentions the Vrttis, Upanagarika etc. as being
such use of words as will promote the realisation of Rasa.
He takes the Vrtti in a -double sense, in the sense of the Vrttis
of Natya, Kais'ikI etc. which are to be considered in Kavya
also and in the sense of Upanagarika etc. The former he
describes as ideas suitable or appropriate to Rasa and the latter
as words suitable to Rasa (Vide Dhva. A. Ill, p. 182).

li III. 33.

%ra^^T?IT I

I i^?it Tf ^iRfq

Later also Anandavardhana makes the same distinction
and mentions the two \a;ttis together.

n iii. 48.

£fWlT: ^>?JTTJT%T^T: 51 o3;^t£|T«15!IT 2IT«IT^^t^-

cIT: 1

Thus Anandavardhana states more clearly that in Kavyas
there are two Vrttis, the Kaisdkl etc. being the same as in
Natya and the Upanagarika etc. which latter, from being
varieties of Anuprasa in Udbhata, became
and thence in Anandavardhana became more generally 5[^Trg-

186

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

Abhinavagupta also takes Vrttis as not different essentially
from Gunas. He mentions them as they are given by Udbhata^
i,c,, as Anuprasa varieties :

|c3^T: I

+ -h + q^^qw:, q^qi I m-

oiTgqW: sq^qf^qjl, JTTHRqjqT %Jq2fT fcqi I

q^qq ^q^Eq'mfq^qq: i m qq l^^^qfqilq^qjqifqi^q^'q-
qRqqfqqiqiq^qTfqq fi%qT*qra q ^q^tq; ^q^sTgqiq ffq t^-

qTS5qiq^Tqq qq l Locana, pp. 5-6, N.S. edn.

He calls the Parusa, Dipta ; the Upanagarika, Masrna or
Lalita and the Gramya, Madhyama and Komala. Leaving
aside the metaphors in the names, one ean see that the Parusa
suits VIra, Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas and can go with the
Arabhati Vrtti ; the Upanagarika and Komala suit S'rhgara
and Hasya and can go with the Kais'ikI Vrtti. Abhinavagupta
says in a later context :

qiqft^qT €{q?qq (|qfqqi) srgqfqffg; ^an-
»qfq I 1 ^tq^fq 1 qqi — ‘ %m:

qjFqqii^T: ’ ffq sfqqT qq ^qtfqq qq %sTfq^^ ff%: 1

p. 232, III. Locana, N. S. Edn.

Thus Abhinavagupta considers both the Vrttis as Rasa-
ucita-vyavahara, the one, KaisakI etc., of Artha or ideas and
the other, Upanagarika etc., of S'abda, words or letters.
Therefore in Kavya we will not have a classification of

TFIE HISTORY OF VRTTI IN RaVYA 187'

and among Kais'ikyadivrttis themselves- Bharat! will

not be a It also becomes an Artha Vyavahara or

Artha \ rtti. All the four are Artha Vrttis and as distin-
guished from them, the S'abda Vrttis are the three, Upana-
garika etc.

If S'abda and Artha are thus distributed between Upanaga-
rika etc. on the one hand and Kais'ikI etc. on the other,,
what shall Riti stand for ? Anandavardhana does separately
mention Kiti along with the Vrttis Upanagarika etc. in both
the contexts noted above, in Uddyotas one and three. In
Uddyota one, he, as interpreted by Abhinavagupta (Vide pp.
5-6), holds Ritis also as dependent on Gunas like the Vrttis,
Upanagarika etc. Rut strictly speaking there is no room for
Riti in either Anandavardhana’s scheme or Abhinavagupta’s.
For, Riti can be — such use of words as are

appropriate to Rasa but that place has been given to the Vrttis,
Upanagarika etc. which have come to. mean not exactly
\arieties of Anuprasa but use of words suitable to Rasa..
Therefore it is no wonder that we soon see in Mammata
the equation of the three Ritis, Vaidarbhl, Gaud! and Pancal!
with the three Vrttis Upanagarika, Parusa and Komala.
Mammata says that Anuprasa is firstly of two kinds, Cheka
and Vrtti Anuprasa and that the latter is the arrangement of
letters suitable to Rasa.

sqiqT?: I K. ]^ra. IX.

This Vrtti is of three kinds, Upanagarika which is the
use of letters suggestive of Madhurya, Parusa which is the dis-
position of letters suggestive of Ojas, and Komala which is the
use of other letters. Finally Mammata sa 3 ’s that it is these
three Vrttis that are respectively called the Vaidarbhl Riti,
the Gaudtya Riti and the PancMi Riti according to some.

188

SOME CONCEPTS OF AEANKaRA S'aSTRA

31^3r;q^T5I%F|^ q^qj — ^*1551 q^: !!

q^^fqg^T JI^T: I IX. 3-4.

l^qt iiH q^iff iiklqT qi^i^qp^T

3=Eq;^ 1 K. Pra. IX.’

l^qp^qn J^qq: l Manikyacandra.

Hemacandra quotes and completely follows Mammata.
K. A. p. 204. He however does not treat of these three Vrttis,
which are the same as the three Ritis, in the S'abdalahkara
section, but, with a slight improvement treats of them in
the Guna section. Therefore he does not consider these three
Vittis as Anuprasa Jatis but merely as three kinds of Varna
Sahghatana.

Jagannatha goes even a step further. After ekiborately
examining the letters suggestive of or suitable to the various
Rasas, he describes the Racana suggestive of Madhurya. Here
he actually makes Vrtti another name for RIti and speaks of
‘ Vaidarbhi Vrtti

n^fqfq^qfqqq; ^nqi^q^fq =q qq^ i
qifqqRq^5^i^q.q^fq?qT^iT ii
fqqigqT RRi^qi i

qi fqgqT 1^1 qq^q g^qRqiq^Tg ii

3i^T«i fqq?[Tqq1|qq q^qq. i

R. G. p. 73.

^ See above ch. on Riti, pp. 146-7.

189

THE HISTORY OF VRTTT IN KaVYA

In the history of this Vrtti in Poetics, Bhoja occupies a
noteworthy place. For he says that some have given this
Vrtti as of twelve kincls though mainly they are of three
kinds, distinguished by three Gunas, viz,,
and Bhoja does not call these by the old names

Upanagarika etc. He applies those names to varieties of
S'rutyanuprasa, (Vide p. 196. S. K. A. II). He gives new
varieties of this Vrtti- Anuprasa of old.

VO

I

^?^T q^T 11

f1% fH5iT i

q:qTet 11

S. K. A. II. S'ls. 84-86..

*

We see here that, though Bhoja does not use here the
names Upanagarika, Nagarika and Gramya, he uses still the
names Lalita, Parusa and Komala and to these three adds
nine more. After illustrating these he refutes them all. He
opines that such \h’ttis are unnecessary since they are not
separate from either the Gunas or the Vrttis, Kais'ikI etc.

^IT I

jf ^ n

S. K. A. II. 87-

: I Ratnes’vara.

190

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

Having cast away this Vrtti the old Anuprasa Jatis
increased into twelve), Bhoja holds another set of twelve
Anuprasa Jatis as being called Vrtti or Vrtty anuprasa. They
are named on a geographical basis. They are not heard of
elsewhere and have little reality or propriety as regards their
names. The names of these twelve Vrttis are

%%

and ^CT^. We don’t know why Bhoja satisfied
himself with twelve provinces, while, ancient India is
traditionally described as having comprised fifty-six provinces.

Fortunately these Vrttis disappear in later literature.
Even the old Vrttis Upanagarika etc. pass into obscurity and
Hemacandra is perhaps the last to mention them. Later
writers completely forget the names Upanagarika etc. as Vrttis
standing for such use of words as are suggestive of Rasa.
They keep the concept of the four ancient Vrttis derived from
Natya, KaisakT etc. and hold them, as Anandavardhana did, as
the name of the development or delineation of such ideas, Artha,
as are in consonance with Rasa. They are held as

Side by side with them are held the Ritis for
Certain writers are satisfied with four Vrttis
and four Ritis, while others increase their number. Bhoja has
raised the number of both to six and has held both as two
S'abdalaiikaras. He adds and to the

four old Vrttis of Artha Sandarbha and Avantika and MagadhT
to the four Ritis, Vaidarbhl, GaudT, Pancall and Latiya.
(Vide S. K. A. H, pp. 133-139.) Among the six ViTtis, it
happens as we expect that Bharati and Sattvati have not got
the meaning they have in Natya. They are respectively put
between the softness and sweetness of the Kais'iki and the
force and blaze of the Arabhatl. Bharati is Komala and
Praudha and Sattvati is the same with more Praudhi. In

THE HISTORY OF VKTT] IN KlVYA

191

Vidyanatha we find that Bharatl leans to Kais'iki as
and Sattvatl to the Arabhatl as Vidyanatha also

assigns these four to the Rasas thus : S'riigara and Karuna
— Kais'ikl ; Raudra and Bibhatsa — Arabhatl ; Hasya, S'anta
and Adbhuta — Bharatl and VTra and Bhayanaka — Sattvatl.
Vidyanatha accepts Bhoja’s two additional Vrttis also and
considers them as the Vrttis of all Rasas. (Vide pp. 43-45.
Prat. Yas'. Bhus. Balamanorama cdn.).

The Kais'ikI Vrtti goes with the V'aidarbhl Riti ; the
Arabhatl with the GaudI , the former pair is characterised by
sweetness and delicacy while the latter, b}^ force and energy.
Murari thus couples the Kais'iki Vrtti and the Vaidarbhi Riti :

II A. R. VII, 101.

Coming to the last concept of Vrtti in poetics, viz., Vrtti
as meaning varieties of compounded collocation — this appears
in Bana and Rudrata. Bana mentions the Padavrtti in which
the Padas are uncompoundcd, Asamasta.

I P- 250, the Kadambarl, N. S. cdn. Rudrata says —

^ II etc. K. A. II, 3-6.

Collocation of words are of two kinds or \4;ttis, uncom-
pounded and compounded, ira*. and lRl^

The former is of only one kind and is called the Vaidarbhi Riti.

1 ii. 0.

* Such change in their import could not be avoided ; for these
two cannot come into Kavya with as much ease and propriety as
Kais5ki and Arabhati.

192

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

The fra: or the collocation with compounds is

of three kinds. If the compounds are as long as possible,
then it is called the Gaudiya Riti. If there are compounds
only of two or three words, the resulting Riti is Pancall which
comes nearest to the VaidarbhT. When the compounds are
of five or seven words, the Riti resulting from them is Latlya.
We hear of the study of compounded or uncompounded
collocation as suggestive of Rasa under various circumstances,
under the name Sarhghatana in the third Uddyota of Dhv. A.
But there we do not hear of the varieties compounded or
uncompounded collocationas being called Vrtti or as directly
producing the four Ritis. Above, in the preceding section,,
we saw how^ a concept of Vrtti, developing from Anuprasa,
soon called itself Riti. Here we are given a relation of the
Ritis to the fact of a collocation having compound words or
uncompounded words. This fact lights up the history of
the Riti before Dandin and Bhamaha. As we find it in
Dandin, we see that Anuprasa, Samasa, Madhur 3 ^a, Parusya,
Komalya or some Gunas corresponding to these two last
Gunas enter into the differentia of the Ritis.

Rudrata knew^ also the Vrttis w hich are Anuprasa Jatis,
He gives, not three, but five kinds of them.

m I

fOlTJTt || II. 19.

Namisadhu, while commenting on this, mentions one
Hari as having held these Vrttis to be eight in number.

THE HISTORY OF VRTTI IN KiVYA 193

The three Vrttis added by Hari are and

and perhaps from Rudrata and Hari it is that Bhoja
makes a set of twelve Vrttis which we noted above. Who
this Hari is, is not known. He does not seem to be an
Alahkarika. This verse is from a Prakrt poem of Hari in the
introductory portion of which, as many other writers do, Hari
speaks of some topics of Alahkara. These Vrttis, Rudrata
says, as Anandavardhana also later says, are to be used, not
with a vengeance but with discrimination, taken and often
cast away with an eye on the Aucitya of Rasa.

Rudrata, K. A. II, 32*

Thus the four Vrttis of Natya live in Kavya as
and as such stand in close relation to the Gunas. They
are on a par with Ritis which are or in an

earlier stage, with what has been characterised as S'abda Vrtti,
Upanagarika etc. Of the four Vrttis, the KaisikI and Arabhati
have had the least or no change at all in Kavya. As can be ex*
pected, Bharat! and Sattvati, when they came into Kavya had to
cast off their old meanings of Speech and Action of subtle Bhavas
of the mind. Even the S'abda Vrtti, Bharati, became an Artha
Vrtti leaning towards the Kais'iki as having less Saukumarya.
^attvatl, as having less Praudhi, was made to mean a weak
variety of Arabhati.

13

THE HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT
POETICS

One of the noteworthy points in the Sanskrit systems of
literary criticism is that, in an inquiry into a comprehensive
philosophy of the literary art, they do not separate poetry
and drama, nor prose and verse. Bharata, in his Natya
S'astra, has defined Drama as Imitation of the three worlds
or representation of the actions of men of various nature :

or (n. s', i, io 7 , iis. 120 etc.

Vide also Das'arupaka I, 7 ). Consequently Bharata has per-
fected a system of ideas of ‘ Loka Dharmi which term means
‘the ways of the world’ or to put it short ‘Nature’, and
stands to denote the realistic elements in Bharata’s Stage.*
In the concept of Prakrti, Bharata studies the various kinds
of men, minds, and natures found in the worlds. In the
concept of Pravrtti he has studied the provincial, racial, and
national characteristics in dressing and other activities. He
has elaborately dealt with Aharya-abhinaya, dress and
make-up, which, he says, must be appropriate to the Rasa
and Bhava.

II n. s', xxiii, 42.

* See my article on Loka Dharmi (Realism) and Natya Dharmi
(Conventions and Idealism) of Bharata’s Stage in the J OR, Madras,

Vol. VIL

HISTORY OF AUGITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 195

He has devoted separate sections to a consideration of the
most proper way of correct speaking in the drama according to
the emotions (XIX, of the Svaras suitable for each

mood and of the musical tunes, Jatyams'akas, appropriate to
the varying Rasa and Bhava (XXIX, 1-4). These remarks
apply to the artists of the stage and theatre, the actors, the
conductor and others. Regarding the work of the poet-
dramatist, Bharata has analysed the text of the drama and has
pointed out how the verbal qualities of sweetness, harshness
etc., and the flights of fancies expressed in the form of figures
of speech have to be appropriate to that Bhava or Rasa which
is portrayed (XVII, 108-123). Thus at the end of the treatment
of eacli topic, Bharata has an important section called
^ Rasa-prayoga where he points out what suits what.

So much so that Bharata. observes that, in judging drarna,
the ground of reference for success of the art is the world. He
emphasises that one has to know the infinite variety of
human nature — Prakrti and S'lla, on which is Natya or drama
based. . .

The ‘ Pramana’ of Natya is finally only the world. A theorist
can give a few indications and the rest can be learnt only
from the world.

I

• ■ • ■ •

196

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

SI 5m H ^ I

5nioT ^ >Tiq%5Tf^ ^fh II
siFIRft^ST: Rfm; 5ft% siTI^j I

cRSTT#^: Rsnoi f| STT^I^f^: II

N. S'., XXVI, 113-119.

»I«TT snf^ ^JIMlf^ I

N. S'., XXIV, 214.

(end of the chapter on dress and make-up). Nature or the
three worlds or Prakrti or S'lla — all these can finally be re-
ferred to by the single word Rasa which is the ‘ Soul ’ of
poetry. Drama is the representation of moods, Bhava-anu-
klrtana, as Bharata puts it. Out of these moods flow every-
thing — the actions, the character, the dress, the nature of one’s
speech etc. Thus to this factor, which is at the root of all
these things, viz,, Rasa, have these things again to be referred
for finding out whether in representing them, there is propriety
or appropriateness. Things cannot be estimated by themselves
separately and labelled as good or bad, appealing or otherwise.
That is, Gunatva and Dosatva do not inherently pertain to
anything eternally but anything, according to the situation
where it occurs, is either suitable or not ; and in this suitability
or otherwise lies Gunatva or Dosatva. What Bharata says of
ornaments and decoration in the make-up of the characters is
true of all other parts of the art of representation by the poet
and the production of the drama on the stage by the actors.
Bharata lays down that if a thing does not agree or is not
proper in a certain place with reference to Rasa, it is the
, greatest literary flaw. Improper placing, like placing a neck-
lace at the foot and an anklet round the neck, can only produce
laughter.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 197

^ 51 I

5n% ^ 11 N. S'., XXIII, 69.

It is a serious breach of propriety for a writer to describe
a forlorn lady suffering from separation from her lord (i.e,, one
in Pravasa Vipralambha) as having her body fully decked with
jewels. In the realm of artistic expression the same rule
holds good. A poet commits the greatest crime against Rasa
if he introduces a cartload of ornaments of a verbal character
in places where Rasa has to be effectively portrayed and where
the absence of any figure is itself the perfection of art. The
proper placing of things in such a manner as to suit Rasa and
the avoiding of things not suitable form the essence of artistic
expression. This is propriety, Aucitya. An anklet adds no
beauty as an ornament but an anklet as an ornament for the
ankle is helpful to beautify one. We can thus see how this
doctrine of appropriateness, propriety and adaptation — all com-
prehended in the one word Aucitya, is directly derivable from
Bharata. Just put by the side of the verse of Bharata above-
quoted, the verse illustrative of the theory of Aucitya given
by Ksemendra in his Aucityavicaracarca, in which work the
doctrine of Aucitya had the complete elaboration into a system
■of criticism, and see :

31^^ ^ 5T 5^511 1

^ ^ II Bharata, XXIII, 69.

qoil,

^ 5133^ gon: n

Ksemendra’s Au. V.C.

19B SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

Thus the first work in the history of Sanskrit Poetics contains
implicitly as n^uch of this theory of Aucitya of the Sanskrit
Alahkara S'astra, as of the other theory of poetry, Rasa, ex-
plicitly, even though emphasis on both these — Aucitya and
Rasa — was again systematically laid only as late as the nintlu
tenth and eleventh centuries.

Aucitya is harmony and in one aspect it is proportion
between the whole and the parts, between chief and the
subsidiary, between the Ahgin and the Aiigas. This perfec-
tion is all the morals and beauty in art. At the final stage of
its formulation as a theory explaining the secret of poetic appeal,.
Aucitya is stated to be the * Jivita life-breath, of poetry.
This Aucitya, which is proportion and harmony on one side
and appropriateness and adaptation on the other, cannot be
understood by itself but presupposes that to which all other
things are harmonious and appropriate. Surely there has to
be harmony and appropriateness in every part and between one
part and another ; but everything as a whole has to be pro-
nounced proper and appropriate or otherwise by a reference to
what constitutes the ‘ Soul ’ — Atman of poetry viz,, Rasa.
Thus Bharata speaks of the Rasa-prayoga of Pravrtti, Vrtti,
Guna, Alahkara, Aharyabhinaya, Pathyaguna, Svara and
Jatyams^a. In later terminology, this Rasaprayoga is Rasa-
aucitya. But Aucitya is only implicitly contained in Bharata.
It was only rather late that Poetics got itself again wedded
and identified with Bharata’s Dramaturgy and took its stand
scientifically on the two pedestals of Rasa and Aucitya, which
it had forgotten for a time, as we shall now see in the following
account of the history of the concept of Aucitya after Bharata.

The next glimpse we have of Aucitya is in Magha, who,
, in his poem, has made some side-remarks which

M^glia

shoot their rays into the darkness of the early

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 199

history of Poetics. In canto ii of Magha’s S'is'upalavadha, we
have a verse on the policy best suited for the king, which,
through comparison, drags in the topic of Gunas in Kavyas
or dramas.

II S'. V. II, 83.

The king has to achieve his purpose with an eye on ex-
pediency. Time and circumstance are the pre-eminently
deciding factors of his policy. There is no inherent good in
either power or forbearance and peace by themselves but all
goodness of a policy consists in its effectiveness, in using that
which is suited to the time. Prowess is waste and will even
ruin the cause where it is needlessly flaunted. Forbearance
cannot help the king when he has to succeed by putting up a
thick fight. Thus, adaptation is the only policy good for the
king. The case is similar to that of a poet with whom the
main concern is Rasa and Bhava and an understanding of
their subtle nature. In portraying his characters and their
actions and in describing them, it will not do if the poet sticks
to one quality throughout, say Prasada or Ojas. When the
Vira, Adbhuta and Raudra Rasas appear, he has to. adopt the
Guna Ojas to suit the vigour, energy and blaze (Dipti) of
those Rasas and when the key of emotion is lowered and
quiet emotinal effects have to be produced, the requisite quality
for the poet is Prasada. Thus, not Gunas by themselves,"^
but that Guna which is proper and appropriate — Ucita — is
helpful to Rasa. This is Guna-aucitya. Aucitya is here
Adaptation. Magha, as a poet, had this clear insight into
Bharata’s ideas of Rasa and Gunas appropriate to each Rasa.
Bhoja considers such appropriateness in expression between
the emotion and the stylistic quality as a Prabandha-guna,

200

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'aSTRA

i.e., one of the good features of good poetry. He calls it
‘ He means the same thing as what Magha

says in the above-given verse, which also Bhoja quotes.

<Magha, S'. V. II, 83.) | S'rhgara Prakas'a,

Madras MS. Vol. II, p. 432.

In the above-given verse of Magha we have an early * S'iro-
daya ’ of the doctrine of Gunas as the Dharmas of Rasa, the
Soul of Kavya, which is one of the special contributions of
Anandavardhana. In later terminology, Magha is here speaking
of appropriateness of letters and collocation,

or simply

It is again in respect of Gunas that we have a faint
Bhamaha glimpse of the idea of Aucitya implied in certain
and Da^idin parts of the treatises of Bhamaha and Dandin.
Magha says that Gunas must change and be appropriate to
the Rasa and the Bhava of the situation. Ojas or Prasada
wrongly placed is a literary flaw, directly hindering Rasa.
Thus the breach of Aucitya gives rise to flaws. In one way,
the greatest Guna or excellence of poetry is only Aucitya
and it comprehends all other Gunas ; and the greatest Dosa
or flaw comprehending other flaws is Anaucitya.' Thus when

(а) Sarves'vara, in his Sahityasara, (p. 20, Madras MS.) gives
seven Vakyartha dosas, and among these Aucitya bhahga is con-
sidered as the first.

(б) Cf. also Municandra’s commentary on Dharmabindu
(Agamodaya Samiti series, p. 11a):

goirirf i

gopim: ii

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 201

the Riti is not suited to the Rasa, we can say that there is
Riti-anaucitya and a Dosa called Arltimat. But the Gaud! Riti
which may not suit S'rhgara cannot be condemned altogether as
eternally unsuited to all poetry. The Gaudi Riti can effectively
suggest Vira, Adbhuta, and Raudra Rasas and in the cases of
these three, the Vaidarbhi suited to S'rhgara may be ‘ anucita
There may be harsh sounds and heavy, long and swollen utter-
ances in a highly worked-up emotion of the kind of Raudra ; the
harsh sounds which suggest the Rasa in this case must be
avoided by the poet in S'rhgara Rasa which is suggested by
sweet assonances and delicate sound effects. Therefore it is
that the Dosas, given as such in separate sections by Bhama-
ha and Dandin, are, to use a word which came into currency
only after Anandravardhana, Anitya. That is, in certain cir-
cumstances Dosas cease to be so ; there are no fixed Gunas or
Dosas ; what is Guna in one case is Dosa in another and
vice versa.

In chapter I, Bhamaha deals with certain Dosas in the
last section beginning with s'l. 37. After defining and illus-
trating them he says that these flaws cease to be so sometimes
and really give beauty to expression.

11

• ■ • ■ •

« ■ ■ ■ ■

202 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

The principle behind these observ^ations is Aucitya, adap-
tation. Again, in chapter IV, Bhamaha speaks of such flaws
in poetry as Lokavirodha. The flaw of Lokavirodha, which
is going against nature, is nothing but the non-observance of
the Aucitya of Prakrti etc. Here, he also points out that re-
dundance, Punarukti, which is generally a flaw in expression,
turns out to be an effective way of expression in fear, sorrow,
jealousy, joy and wonder.

II IV, 14.

There is also the saying ‘ I ’

It is in the same section on Dosas that the principle of
Aucitya is implied in Dandin’s work also. Dandin treats of
Dosas in the fourth chapter of his work. Each and every
Dosa is given with a qualification that in certain circum-
stances it ceases to be Dosa and turns out to be a Guna.
Thus Apartha, the first flaw, is generally a Dosa but it is the
most proper means of successfully portraying a madman’s
raving, a child’s sweet prattle or the speech of a sick man.

II IV. 5.

Speaking of the flaw of Viruddhartha or Vyartha, Dandin
says that there is such a state of mind also in which even
contradictory speech is the natural mode of expression and
hence, in those places, the flaw becomes an excellence.

HISTORY OF AUCITVA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 203^

5^T li ly. 10.

Punarukta, as has been^ pointed out by Bhamaha also, is no
flaw but is an effective way of expressing compassion or any
stress of emotion which needs repetition. Sams'aya or the use
of doubtful or ambiguous words may generally be a flaw but
when such words are wilfully used, as is often needed in the
world, the}^ are perfect Gunas. Thus Dandin shows excep-
tions — Vyabhicara — to all the Dosas. He is fully aware, that
in the realm of poetry, a certain thing is not Dosa by its very
nature but that it is so because of circumstance, a change of
which makes it a Guna. He thus finally concludes :

11 l\. 5 - 7 .

Bhoja developed the same idea by constituting under the
head ‘ Guna ’ a peculiar class of Gunas called the Vais'esika
Gunas. These are the flaws above noticed which Bhamaha
and Dandin considered as excellences sometimes. (Vide the
Sarasvatikanthabharana, chapter I. S'ls. 89-156, pp. 78-119).*
Bhoja calls them also Dosagunas. As a matter of fact, all
Gunas and Dosas are ‘ Vais'esika ‘ It all depends \ says
the discerning critic in literature as one says in this complex,
world. The fact of Dosas becoming Gunas recorded by
Bhamaha and Dandin means, if it means or implies anything,
the doctrine of Aucitya as the only ruling principle holding
good in the realm of poetry for ever. It is because of this
that, in Poetics, Dosas are called Anitya. It is only a clearer

* I have spoken of these at length in the chapter on the History
of GuiQLas in my book on the S'rhgara Prakas^a.

204

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'XSTRA

Statement of what Dandin has said in the Dosa-section that
we have in Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, who say ;

^ 3Tf^T ^ ^ I

52 ^ ^ ^ 11

Dhva. A. II, 12.

»nq: i Locana.

The principle by virtue of which ‘ harsh sounds ’ — S'ruti-
dusta — which form a Dosa to be avoided in S'rhgara become
themselves a Guna highly suggestive of Raudra etc., is Adapta-
tion or Aucitya. (Vide also Dhva. A. Ill, 3-4).

In the first half of the 8th century, King Yas'ovarman

of Kanauj, patron of Bhavabhuti, wrote his

author ' of "tTe drama Ramabhyudaya, whose prologue has

drama Rama- gome interest to the student of the history of
bhyudaya.

Poetics for a verse in it on certain concepts
connected with theoretical literary criticism. That veritable
mine of quotations, the stupendous S'rngara Prakas'a of king
Bhoja, quotes that verse. Bhoja considers a number of
Alankaras of Prabandha, i.e., good features of a poem or a
drama as a whole. One of these Prabandhalafikaras is given by
him as ‘ excellence of build ’ — — which means,
.according to him, that the minor ‘ descriptions ’ in a Maha-
kavya must be so set in the framework of the story that they
do not appear irrelevant or overdone. This is Aucitya in
its aspect of proportion, harmony and strict artistic relevancy
of all details from the point of view of Rasa. Bhoja means
that this applies to drama also as his quotation from Yas'o-
varman shows.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 205

3^^^ sTfR^igiT^, ?!^5r

sfg: im JT I

£^f5«r 5I5a[T4^:

11 '

S'r. Pra. Mad. MS. Vol. II, p. 411.

This is the earliest instance so far known of the occurrence of
the word Aucitya. Yas'ovarman here refers to a number of
good features which a good drama should have. First among
them are Aucitya of expression, f.e., speech written according
to the nature and level or rank of the characters and Aucitya

* That this is a verse in Yas'ovarman's Ramabhyudaya is
known from the Locana on the Dhva. A. Ill, p. 148. Ananda-
vardhana quotes from the second line of the above verse, the bit
^ \ Explaining the phrase which introduces

this quotation, Abhinavagupta says : ^ I I ^

There should be a full -stop in the text here and the words

in the Locana do not form any quotation, as the N. S.
edn. suggests by clubbing them together with and by

giving them with quotation marks. The correct text should be
I is a Pratika and refers to the word

Sthiti in Anandavardhana’s Vrtti "

etc. This word Sthiti is interpreted by Abhinavagupta as
the course of the story

That it is a verse from the prologue can easily be known ; for
such verses can figure nowhere else. Mark the similarity of this
verse to the verse * etc.’ in the prologue to the Mala-

timadhava of Bhavabhuti who wrote in Yas^ovar man’s court. Also
note in the III line the Guija mentioned by Yas'ovarman
’ which Bhavabhuti also mentions. ‘ ^

This seems to have developed into the Praudhi forming the
Arthaguna Ojas in Vamana, III. ii. 2.

206

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

of Rasa, /.e., delineation of characters in their proper moods
with an e^^e to developing the Rasa in the proper place.
These to comprise the external and internal Aucitya or Aucitya
of expression and Aucitya of the content, /.e., the Rasa. On
this point Yasovarman has emphasised only what Bharata
had laid down as regards Prakrti and Slila. The second
mentioned Aucitya of Rasa, its appropriateness to the Patra,
the character and its development in the proper place (^^-

are elaborated into many rules of
Rasaucitya by Rudrata and Anandavardhana as we shall see in
a further section.

It is this all-round Aucitya called by Bhoja an Alahkara
and Sannives'apras'astyam that Lollata also emphasises. Lollata
wants every part of the Mahakavya to be Rasavat. All these
are various ways of putting the idea of the Aucitya of Rasa, the
‘Soul’ of poetry, without basing oneself on which, none can
talk of Aucitya intelligibly.

In practice, as can be seen from the numerous and large

Mahakavyas, which are entitled to that name

Lollata .

because of their bulk at least, all notions of pro-
priety had become unknown to poets. The several limbs over-
developed themselves separately, like elephantiac leg, and the
Kavya as a whole was an outrage on harmony and Aucitya. This
Lollata severely criticised, perhaps in his commentary on the
Natya S'astra. To this aspect of Aucitya viz,, proportion and
strict relevancy of every detail, Lollata drew attention. In
the gap between Dandin and Rudrata, two or three stray
verses of Lollata quoted by Rajas'ekhara, Hemacandra and
Namisadhu give us a flash in the dark and we see how, stage
by stage, the concept of propriety or Aucitya was developing.
These three verses of Lollata emphasise Rasaucitya, Aucitya
of parts to the chief element called Rasa i.e,, the aspect eallcd

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 207

proportion. Ornaments hide beauty if they are not structural
or organic ; similarly * descriptions ' have to logically emerge
out of the story and the complex course of its Rasa as a
necessity. Descriptive cantos should not stand out like out-
houses and isolated places for the poet’s mind to indulge at
length in excess. This is true of the drama as much as of the
epic poem. In a drama, the sub-plots, the Pataka and the
Prakari and the Sandhyahgas should not be considered by
themselves as having any virtue but should be seen to be
relevant to Rasa. This Anandavardhana emphasises, as we
shall see. As regards the Mahakavya, Lollata' [Aparajiti, /.e.,
son of Aparajita’] says according to Rajas'ekhara :

K. M. I, ix, p. 49.

The second verse in the above quotation, along with its follow-
ing verse, is quoted by Hemacandra with the mention of the
name Lollata. The additional verse quoted by him criticises
the poets for setting apart cantos for such feats as Yamaka,
Cakrabandha etc., in a Alahakavya, they being very inapprop-
riate and uttterly unhelpful to the emotional idea of the
epic poem.

* Vide my paper on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabharati,
Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part II, p. 169.

208

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

^ *RT: II

^T II 1% II

K. A. Ch. V, p. 215,

Namisadhu, on Rudrata III. 59, quotes the additional verse
quoted by Hemacandra and emphasises with its authority the
principle of Aucitya.

Thus proportion and harmony form an aspect of Aucitya
which is propriety, adaptation, and other points of appro-
priateness, From the point of view of the perfect agreement
between the parts and the chief element of Rasa, from the
point of view of this proportion and harmony, I think, Aucitya
can be rendered in English into another word also viz,y
‘ Sympathy ’, which as a word in art-criticism means ‘ mutual
conformity of parts

From Daijdin we had to come to Lollata before we

could again catch sight of Aucitya as a prin-

Rudrata . , , , . .

ciple underlying many literary dicta. This

means that we have to come almost to the time of Anan-
davardhana whom Rudrata must have slightly preceded.
Up to the time of Rudrata the concept was developing un-
consciously without a name. The name Aucitya was not given
to the idea by any writer of poetic theory, and one more
useful word was not thus added to the critical vocabulary of
the Sahrdaya, But the word Aucitya must have slowly
dawned in the circles of Sahrdayas and we first see that word
used in theoretical literature only in Rudrata's Kavyalankara,
a work which has not yet left the primitive Alankara-stage

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRJT POETICS 209

of criticism but has however embodied into itself a good deal
of the concept of Rasa, which alone, according to it, made
poetry that interesting and charming thing it is — Sarasa.
The word Aiicitya occufs often in Anandavardhana’s work
and Rudrata is only the first writer to mention it in theoretical
literature. For, earlier, in the first half of the eighth century.
King Yas'ovarman of Kanauj uses the word Aucitya with
much theoretical significance, in much the same significance
as the word is used with in later times, in the prologue of
his lost drama, Ramabhyudaya, as we have noticed above.
Thus the three stages to be noticed in the appearance of the
name Aucitya is its mention by Yas'ovarman, treatment of it
to a small extent in Rudrata and to a large extent in Ananda-
vardhana’s Dhvariyaloka. Rudrata just preceded Anandavar-
dhana or was an early contemporary of his. He was perhaps
writing in S'ankuka’s time. Some ideas given in the Dhva. A.
arc already seen in Rudrata’s work. iMany of the Rasa dosas
mentioned by Anandavardhana under Rasaucitya in Uddyota
iii are found in Rudrata’s K. A. What we must note here at
present is that though Rudrata treats t)f Alankaras so largely
and though his work is yet one of the old period in which
works are called Kavya-A/a/ii^am, he has realised the impor-
tance of Rasa to suit which Alankaras exist. If Alankaras are
otherwise, they have little meaning. That is what Anandavar-
dhana develops in a section on Alankarasamiksa in Uddyota ii.
The idea that Rasa and Rasaucitya control Alankara is already
seen in Rudrata, who, as said above, is the first writer of
Poetics to mention the word Aucitya. After dealing with some
S'abdalankaras like Yamakas which are a siren to the easily
tempted poets, Rudrata says, by way of closing the chapter,
that these figures must be introduced after bestowing due
•thought on propriety, Aucitya, with reference to the main

14

210

SOME QONCEPTS OF ALANKAR/V S'ASTRA

theme. Even the Anuprasas have to be now cast away and
now taken and must be sparsely used with much advantage.
They must not be thickly overlaid upon the theme through
the whole length of it.

K. A. II, 32.

This is Aucitya of Alahkara which Anandavardhana
elaborates in Uddyota ii of his work. It is this idea in the
last line of Rudrata’s verse quoted above — that
Anandavardhana has formulated into the rule — ^

(II. 19) taking and throwing away according to the
circumstances, as regards the use of figures.

The word Aucitya again occurs at the end of the next
chapter in Rudrata’s work where again Rudrata points out the
danger of Yamaka etc. He says that they must be approached
only by him who knows Aucitya. Namisadhu perfectly under-
stands the full implication of Rudrata’s strictures on Yamaka
etc., and quotes on this subject of Aucitya the verse of Lollata
which we considered in a previous section. Rudrata says

K. A. Ill, p. 36.

rIsiT ^ I ^T^IT ^*1?^ ^

fi: I I

I ‘ + JTf %Ti^-

(Lollata) |1 ’

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 211

. . .

. . . I ^ I

Namisadhu.

Besides the mention of the word Aucitya and the presence
of the idea of Alahkaraucitya in the two places above referred
to, Rudrata speaks of the adaptation-aspect of Aucitya also
implicitly like Dandin while dealing with Dosas, which, in
certain cases, become Gunas. {Vide chap, vi, S'l. 8). Under
the Dosa called Gramya, Rudrata speaks of propriety in ad-
dressing persons of differing ranks which Bharata deals with
at length as a part of Prakrtyaucitya. Explaining another
variety of the Dosa called Gramya, viz,, the Asabhya in VI.
21-24, Rudrata says that there are certain words which are
inappropriate — Anucita — but which in certain special cases
become very appropriate — Ucita.

I ’ He again uses the idea of ‘ Ucitanucita ’ in the next
variety of Gramya. He then points out like Dandin how
all Dosas, Punarukta etc., become Gunas elsewhere. (VI,
29-39). Finally, Rudrata says that almost all kinds of flaws
become excellences when occasion needs the ‘ imitation ' —
Anukarana — of those flaws. That is, the poet and the
dramatist have to depict an infinite variety of men and nature
in diverse and complex circumstances. When a madman has
to be represented, his nonsense has to be ‘ imitated ’ and
it is itself ‘ sense ’ for the artist here. This was pointed
out also at the beginning of this paper while showing how
Bharata’s N.S'. implies the adaptation aspect of Aucitya.
Says Rudrata :

^ ^ W V, 47.

212 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S^ASTRA

As an instance of all flaws becoming excellences, Namisadhu
says that in describing a bad speaker committing mistakes of
pronunciation, grammar etc., art makes Gunas of all those
mistakes. Aucitya or adaptation transforms Dosas into
Gunas. He cites an instance of the funny description of the
illiterate husband of the poetess Vikatanitamba who is unable
to pronounce properly.

^ i

^ f ^ q II i

Following Rudrata, Bhoja says in the beginning of his
treatment of those Dosas which become Gunas :

% =^g^^Tf3[i I

^S5r ^^on; II S. K. A. I, 89.

This point is realised by the American critic J. E.
Spingarn who writes as follows as if explaining the prin-
ciple of Aucitya, by which Dosas become Gunas as a
result of circumstances like ‘ imitation Mr, Spingarn says,
in an essay on the Seven Arts and the Seven Confusions,
that in poetry and drama Dosatva and Gunatva are
not absolutely fixed abstractly and that they are always
relative. He remarks : ' It is inconceivable that a modern
thinker should still adhere to the abstract tests of good
expression, when it is obvious that we can only tell whether
it is good or bad when we see it in its natural context. Is
any word artistically bad in itself ? Is not “ ain’t ” an ex-
cellent expression when placed in the mouth of an illiterate
character in a play or story ? ’ In Rudrafa’s words, Spingarn

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 213

says that a Gramya word becomes most appropriate in a case
of Anukarana — ‘ imitation Therefore in expression, in the
world of thought, in the realm of action and feeling, and in the
region of ideas, that which is proper in the context, that which
is useful to the Rasa, and that which has mutual harmony
with the other parts, is the best and most beautiful.

In chapter XI, Rudrata again speaks of flaws of thought
and emotion, Arthadosas and Rasadosas, where under
‘ Gramya ’, he mentions Anaucitya or inappropriateness in
doings, in port, in dress and in speech with reference to
country, family, caste, culture, wealth, age and position. The
need for the Aucitya in these is emphasised by Bharata,
Rudrata says :

11 XI, 9.

All these Dosas are again shown to become Gunas in S'ls.
18-23. We can illustrate this principle of Aucitya everywhere.
Ordinarily Nyunopama or comparing to an inferior object and
Adhikopama or comparing to a superior object are flaws of
Upama or the figure of Simile but these two are the very secret
of success when a poet wants to satirise a person. Nyunopama
and Adhikopama are freely employed in comic and satiric
writings where the}^ become very ‘ Ucita

The idea of Aucitya and that word itself also explicitly
occur often in the Dhvanyaloka, besides being

Anandavardhana . , . - -

implied in many places. As a matter of tact,

Ksemendra, the systematic exponent of Aucitya as the * Life ’

of poetry, took his inspiration only from Anandavardhana.

Anandavardhana has laid dow n that the ‘ Soul ’ of poetry is

Rasa or Rasadhvani.

214

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

mi 3^T I

2at^: 11 I, 5.

That Dhvani is the only artistic process by which Rasa,
the ‘ Atman is portrayed by the poet and is got at by the
Sahrdaya and that everywhere things appeal most by being
deftly concealed and suggested by suppression in a fabric of
symbology, are the reasons why Anandavardhana posits Dhvani
as the ‘Atman’ of poetry. That really Rasa or Rasadhvani is
the ‘ Atman he expressly admits even in the first Uddyota {vide
p. 28). The most essential thing in Rasa is Aucitya. Tfiat
Vastu or ideas and Alankara or the artistic expression couched
in figure and style are only the outer garment of Rasa, that
they are subordinate and serviceable only to Rasa, and that
they have meaning only as such, is the way in which Ananda-
vardhana speaks of the Aucitya of Vastu and Alankara
to Rasa. Firstly, Alankara by itself has no virtue. It has
to be relevant, helpful to develop Rasa and never an
overgrowth hindering or making hideous the poem. The term
Alankara itself has meaning only then.

11 III, 6.

The topic of Aucitya of Alankara giving the rules which
alone secure the appropriate employing of Alankara is dealt
with by Anandavardhana in Ud. II, S'ls. 15-20, pp. 85 93. He
first takes up the S'abdalankaras and condemns the Yamakas
written at a stretch in such tender situations like Vipralambha.
The rationale of Anandavardhana’s principles is this : what-
ever the poet writes must be suggestive of Rasa and every-
thing has to be tested good or bad, relevant or irrelevant,

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 215

beautiful or ugly, by applying this strict logic of their capacity
to suggest or hinder Rasa. The main refrain of Anandavardhana
here is that Alahkara should be structural, organically emerg-
ing as the only way of expressing an emotion and it must
never be a cold and deliberate effort at decoration, necessi-
tating the forgetting of Rasa and the taking of a special
effort.

II II, 17.

On p. 88, in Karikas 19-20, he gives the poet five practical
ways of using Alankara to advantage.^ On this section is
based the section on Alankaraucitya in Ksemendra’s Au-
eityavicaracarca.

Similarly Anandavardhana relates Guna to Rasa of which
Guna is the ' Dharma ’ and points out Aucitya of Guna. The
quality of Madhurya is inherent in S'rngara, Vipralambha and
Karuna, whereas Raudra is attended by the quality of Dipti,
by a blazing up of the hearts. Accordingly words and col-
location used in the two different cases must be such as to
agree with the mood and the atmosphere of the Guna and its
Rasa or such as to suggest the Guna and the Rasa. Thus
sweet sound effects, the soft letters with nasal conjunct con-
sonants, suggest and promote the realisation of the more tender
and sweeter emotional moods whereas liarsh combinations
which jar in the above instances instil vigour and become very
appropriate to or highly suggestive of the wild Rasa of Raudra.
This proper use of letters is Varna-aucitya ; Anandavardhana
will say that there is Varnadhvani in these instances ; and a
third wdll call it Varnavakrata. Collocation suggestive of

^ See above, chapter on Use and Abuse of Alankara.

216

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'aSTRA

Rasa or appropriate to Rasa is a case of Dhvani from San-
ghatana or Aucitya of Sanghatana. Both these instances of
Aucitya of Varna and Sanghatana coming under Gunaucitya
are treated of by Anandavardhana in Ud. III.

^ || III, 2.

Wherever there is suggestiveness of Rasa in the express-
ion, be it the element of sound and letter, separate words, col-
location, portions of the theme (Prakarana) or even the work
as a whole, there we have the Aucitya of those elements to
Rasa which is the main thing. This is the relation between
Dhvani and Aucitya. This is the relation between Dhvani
and Vakrata or Vakrokti, as Abhinavagupta points out in his
commentary on chap. XV of the Natyas'astra.’

Anandavardhana says of Varnas :

^ II

51^ ^ ^ ^=5351: || III, 3-4.

Sounds must be appropriate — Ucita — enough to suggest the
Rasa. This is the Aucitya called Appropriateness, the test of
this Aucitya being the harmony between the expressed sounds
and the suggested Rasa, the power of the former, the vehicle

* Vide my article on the Writers quoted in the Abhinava-
bharati, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III^
p. 221 ; also my note on Abhinavagupta, Kuntaka and Laksana
in the Indian Culture, Vol. Ill, part. IV, p. 756. Abhinavagupta
reconciles here Dhvani, Vakrata and general Vaicitrya. We can
reconcile Aucitya also to these.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 217

and the means, in suggesting the latter, the end. The same
sounds helpful, suggestive or appropriate in one case need
not always be so. They are inappropriate to other cases
where other suggestive means of expression are required.
Similarly what is useless in one case becomes useful in
another and this is the Aucitya called Adaptation.

Then Anandavardhana speaks of another kind of Gunau-
citya called the Sahghatanaucitya.

ll HI, 6.

Visayaucitya is dealt with in III, 7 and Rasaucitya regarding
Sahghatana in III,' 9. This topic of Sahghatana as having its
intelligibility in suggesting the qualities of Madhurya and
Ojas which in turn bring in their emotions, Vipralambha and
Raudra, and as being finally controlled by the Aucitya of
Rasa, together with three other minor principles of Aucitya
of Vakta, (the character), Vacya (the subject) and Visaya,
(the nature or form of artistic expression like the classifi-
cation into drama, epic poem, campu, prose etc.) — is the
special contribution of Anandavardhana for which he thus
takes credit :

q ii m, p. i44.

Visayaucitya is pointed out by Bharata himself. The
dramatic form as such enforces certain conditions and prin-
ciples of Aucitya on the poet. Anandavardhana says that in
a drama, the supreme concern of the poet shall be only Rasa.
He shall never think of Alahkara etc. In drama especially,
long compounds should be avoided.

218

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'iSTRA

^ ^

^5^ I

Dhva. A., p. 139.

All things impeding the quick realisation of Rasa must be
avoided. According to Bharata, this additional Aucitya must
be observed as regards drama in particular : the words used
must be simple, well-known and easy to be understood, deli-
cate and sweet to hear. Harsh words and grximmarisms like
Yahglugantas, Cekrldita etc., in a drama are like anchorites
with Kamandalus in a courtesan’s room. They are ‘ Anucita ’
in drama.

^T5?T5f;^T ^ I

N. S'. XXI, 131-2. (See also XVII, 121-3.)

§Io^T ^ 1

JTTUT; II

N. S'. XXVII, 46.

The section on Prabandhadhvani deals with the very sub-
stance of a poem or drama and here one has to see that every-
thing observes the principles of Aucitya and justifies itself by
suggesting, as best as it can, the Rasa. A story has to be
built as the expression of a Rasa. If a story already available
is handled, changes suitable to the Rasa must be made wher-
ever the old story is not helpful to bring out the Rasa. If
there are too many incidents, only those that are most
expressive of the emotion must be chosen. This is Pra-
bandhadhvani and Prabandhaucitya as also Prakaranadhvani

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 219

and Prakaranaucitya to adopt the twodold classification of
Kuntaka. Bhoja would call this appropriate change in the
story as Prabandhadosah^na and Kuntaka as Prakaranavakra-
ta. Appropriateness of which suggestiveness is the touch-
stone is meant by all these writers. Says Anandavardhana :

II III, 10-14.

The Angas or subsidiary themes and accessory emotional
interests have to be developed only up to the extent proper
to them and their Ahgin, i.e., the chief theme and its Rasa.
Thus the episodes, the Patakas and Prakarls, in a drama, or
the ' descriptions ’ in a Mahakavya have to observe the rule
of Aucitya which is proportional harmony. They must not
make one forget the main thread and sidetrack him for a
sojourn into grounds foreign in purpose to the main theme.
That is why Lollata condemns the descriptive digressions in
the Mahakavyas and emphasises thereby the same principle
of the Aucitya of proportion by demanding that everything
must be ‘ Rasavat When this rule is not observed, faults
are committed. By the transgression of the principles laid

220 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

down by Anandavardhana in the above-given verses and in
other places also, Hemacandra, who follows Anandavardhana
and of whose system he is a clear exponent, points out that
the following literary flaws are committed :

I K. Anu. Ill, p. 121.

In Harivija\’a, when the delicate sentiment of Vipralambha
has to be delineated, the poet has succumbed to the tempta-
tion of an overdone description of the beach and the sea.
Such irrelevancies can be characterised as so many swellings
on the face of a Kavya. Hemacandra does not spare even the
major poets while considering this aspect of Aucitya. He
criticises both the prose works of Bana and the Kavyas
like S'ismpalavadha for their ‘ Gadus h

2. . Hemacandra remarks
that though the drama has to be varied in interest and many
other emotions have to be introduced as subsidiary features,
the poet must not concentrate on the subsidiary Ahgas and
lose sight of the Ahgin which must be taken up and brought
to the forefront wherever necessary. The main thread must
never be lost sight of ; for as Hemacandra says :

3. Irrelevant description or introduction of events, inci-

dents or ideas that have nothing to do with the Rasa is a
great mistake. It is ‘ These

are the principles of Aucitya which secure proportion and
harmony. (See also Mammata, K. Pra. VII, 13-14.)

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 221

The fourth Dosa mentioned by Hemacandra is Prakrti-
vyatyaya, breach of Prakrtyaucitya of which Bharata has
spoken at length and which we referred to in the opening
section where we held that in this concept of Prakrti, Bharata
implicitly laid down the doctrine of Aiicitya also. All these
Dosas are derived from Anandavardhana’s Vrtti on his own
Karikas on Prabandhadhvani which we have quoted above.
In this section Anandavardhana speaks of the Aucitya of
Vibhava, Anubhava and Sahearin, all of which can be included
in the one idea of Bhavaucitya which resolves into a question
of Prakrtyaucitya. Aucitya is very often met with in this
section in the III. Ud. of the Dhva. A. It is in this section
that Anandavardhana formulates that memorable verse which
is the greatest exposition of the concept of Aucitya and its
place in poetry. He says here: Nothing hinders Rasa as
Anaucit 3 'a or impropriety ; Aucitya is the great secret of Rasa.

II III, 15.

Bharata himself recognises how each part and incident in the
drama has to refer to Rasa and how, otherwise, it has no
right to exist. It is only natural, for Bharata is the writer
who lays the greatest emphasis on Rasa to which everything
else is subservient. Anandavardhana observes that, simply
because Bharata has laid down a certain number of emotional
points or incidents as Sandhyahgas, one must not try to see
that he introduces everything mentioned by Bharata. What-
ever is introduced must be on the score of its suggestiveness
of Rasa and not on the score of loyalty to text.

JT 3 11 III, 12. Dhva. A.

222

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

Bharata himself 3a5^s so finally, after giving all the San-
dhyangas and Anandavardhana only restates the following of
Bharata :

JT) 1

N. S'. XXI, 107.

Bharata emphasises discretion : ^ ^Tf^T ^ ^ ; this

suitability or writing according to the needs of the context is
only, the sense of Aucitya in a poet.

Anandavardhana then goes to other kinds of Aucitya or
rather points out how, not only the working out of a plot, not
only the expression of an idea in figure, hut even the words
and the synonyms, the case, inflection, voice etc., have to
be suggestive of Rasa. That is, a poet should explore all
possibilities of suggesting the vast realm of emotion — as many
possibilities as his poor medium called language can afford.
If a jingle can aid him, he seizes it; if a use in the passive
voice is more effective than one in the active, he prefers it ;
if Atmanepada suggests mere, that has to be exploited. Thus
every bit of the medium called language from sound, word^
position of a word in a sentence etc., has to be thoroughly
exploited and capital use made out of it by the poet. All
these ideas revolve round Aucitya. If Sup, Ting, Karaka
etc., are suggestiv'e, they are ‘ ucita appropriate.

From this part of Anandavardhana’s work is derived Ksemen-
dra’s Aucitya of Kriya, Karaka, Lihga, Vacana etc. Similarly
there is the Aucitya of Pada, of a word, of a name or

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 223

synon 3 Tn. This is the Padadhvani of Anandavardhana, found
in the beginning of Ud. III. The ‘ suggestive word ’ or the
' proper word ' of Anandavardhana and Ksemendra is like the
‘ inevitable word,’ or the' ‘ strong word ’ mentioned by some
English writers.

Of Aucitya of Vrtti and Riti also, Anandavardhana speaks
in the third Uddyota which is devoted to the exploration
of all possible suggestive means in the medium of language,
the Vyahjaka.

I Dhva. A., Ill, p. 163.

Aucitya regarding Rasa itself, how the main Rasa has to
be delineated, how the Ahga-rasas are to be made to develop
the main, what Rasas are mutually incompatible, how a Rasa
like S'rhgara must not be so over developed as to cloy, or
Karuna which, v hen again and again developed, makes the
heart ‘ fade ’ (Mlana) — these are dealt with by Ananda-
vardhana in the III Ud. In this respect also, the pitfalls
which may be called Rasadosas, are already mentioned to some
extent in Rudrata. Yaswarman himself mentions

^ ^ nourishing of the Rasa at the proper time
Rudrata gives a Dosa called \’irasa which is the introduction
or the flowing in of an irrelevant or contiadictory sentiment
into the current of the main Rasa. In this ^^irasa is included
the Dosa of Viruddha rasa samaves'a of Anandavardhana.
(See Dhva. A, III, 2, pp. 164-170). Rudrafa illustrates this
Virasa by a case of a very inappropriate mingling of Karuna
and S'rhgara. Another kind of Virasa according to Rudrata
is the fault of overdevelopment of even the proper Rasa^

224

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'ASTRA

^ =q ^Ti l|

II

K. A. XI, 12-14.

The latter is Anandavardhana’s Atidipti or g?f: These

flaws of Rasa resulting from lack of Rasaucitya are mentioned
in the S'rhgaratilaka also :

=q ^siT I

^ 'mp =q qJM ll III, 20-22.

Virasa is explained by Rudrabhatta as Viruddha rasa, inap-
propriate or incompatible emotion and Nlrasa as the inter-
mittent or excessive portrayal of one Rasa— fl%t
Anandavardhana puts these ideas of Rasaucitya relating to the
handling of the Rasas themselves thus :

2?^: qiiq^tfi^JIT q%l> II

3I5FHJ% ^ I

wiifq ii

^qi^ ^dqiq =q i in, 17-19.

The last mentioned Vrttyanaucitya resulting in Rasanaucitya

is an error in taste in respect of thought in the development
of chq,racter and in the portrayal of actions and incidents

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 225

which is called by Rudrabhatta as Patradusta. This is also
taken by Anandavardhana as the improper atmosphere —
A mellow temper cannot suit a bois-
terous scene of dust-raising conflict in Raudra ; a bloody and
tumultuous chaos goes ill with the sweetness and quite pleasant-
ness of love or the tenderness and delicacy of Vipralambha
and Karuna. Of this Vrttyaucitya Anandavardhana again says :

^ Wd: II HI. 33.

Thus Anandavardhana has shown how, in his own phraseology,
Aucitya is the greatest secret of Rasa — j how in the
fashioning of every part of the expression which is the body
or the symbolic vehicle of Rasa or ‘ the empirical technique '
as Abercrombie would call it, the only ruling principle of the
poet is an all-round, all-comprehensive Aucitya, with reference
to which alone, the choice of words, of cases, of metre, the
collocation, style, Gunas, Alahkaras — in fact every means of
suggestion from the trifling jingle to the greatest, is in-
telligible. This Aucitya of word and thought, Vacya vacaka,
with refernce to Rasa is the greatest rule in poetry. To attend
to it and write according to it is the chief duty of the poet.

^ 11 III, 32.

Between this verse on one side and with the verse —

occurring in the same section in a similar context, on the

other side, the whole theory of Aucitya is completely stated.

15

226

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

If Time had spared to us the whole of Rajas'ekhara’s
Kavya mimamsa, we would have had a larger knowledge of
_ . , , , Rajas'ekhara’s ideas on Aucitya. Even in the

Rajas'ekhara and *' ^

his wife, Avanti- first chapter of Kavirahasya that has come to
us, Rajas'ekhara mentions Aucitya in the fifth
section called Kavyapakakalpa. He first takes up poetic
culture and learning and opines that all poetic culture is only
the discrimination of the proper and the improper — Ucita
and Anucita.

p. 16, K. M. Gaek. edn.

There is also an oft-quoted Sanskrit verse which gives this
same idea regarding the larger art of man’s behaviour in
the world.

VO (H

Rajas'ekhara’s wife also lays great emphasis on Aucitya ;
for she says that Paka, ripeness or maturity of poetic power,
is the securing of expression, — ideas, words, conceptions,
fancies etc., — which is proper and appropriate to Rasa.

p. 20, K. M.

The idea of Aucitya as adaptation, the idea that in poetry
there is no fixed rule determining Guna and Dosa and that
things are good or bad only on the ground of appropriateness
or inappropriateness and that, according to circumstance, even
a Do^ may become a Guna — is also very well realised by
Rajas'ekhara who says at the end of the chapter Kavirahasya —

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 227

51 I

^ W II

?IR^T5I^ ^ >iWT^ II ' p. 112. K. M.

The careful poet who has his eye on Aucitya employs even the
so-called flaws and makes them excellences whereas the care-
less writer abuses even the Gunas and spoils his expression
by the absence of the sense of Aucitya.

The place of Abhinavagupta in the history of Aucitya is
important. As the author of the Locana he lucidly expounds

and elaborates the ideas of Anandavardhana,
Abhinavagupta i i

who, as we have seen above, is the greatest
name in the history of Aucitya. On the other side, Abhinava-
gupta is the teacher in Poetics * of Ksemendra who is the
systematiser of Aucitya. It is clear from Anandavardhana's
treatment of Aucitya in Ud. Ill, that Aucitya naturally
emerges out of the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani and that
the three cannot be separated. Abhinavagupta takes his stand
on this triple aspect of the ‘ life ’ of poetry — Rasa first, then
Dhvani and then Aucitya. He says :

5ftf^ I p. 13.

Aucitya presupposes something to which a thing is ‘ ucita ’
and that to which everything else is finally to be estimated as
^ ucita ’ is Rasa which is the ‘ soul ’ of poetry.

* Jayamangalacarya’s Kavis'iksa (Peterson’s ^ I Report, Last

list, App. I, pp. 78-9) says : i

* Vide Brhatkathamanjari, chap, xix, 36, 37 and Bharata-
manjari, last chap. 7, 8.

228

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

On the subject of Alahkaraucitya about which Ananda-
vardhana speaks so much in Ud. II, Abhinavagupta says that
the greatest Aucitya of Alahkara is that the term has any
meaning at all only when there is the ‘ Alahkarya the ‘ soul
Otherwise, it is like decorating the dead body. Decoration of
a living body also is Anaucitya in certain cases ; ornaments
on the body of a recluse who has renounced life appear
ridiculous — anucita. Thus figures of speech without Rasa and
figures of speech in places which do not need them are bad.

p. 75. Locana.

He thus explains Rasaucitya, i.e., the Aucitya of Bhavas,
Vibhavas, etc., on p, 147.

»TT^: I

The idea of Aucitya, like that of Vakrokti, was current as a
very frequently used term in the critical circles of Kashmirian
Alankarikas for a long time.^Vakrokti rose out of Alankara,
Aucitya in the wake of Rasa and Dhvani. Aucitya must have
become more current after Anandavardhana who has spoken
of it so much and who has said that its presence and absence
makes and unmakes Rasa and poetry. It was so much in
use that, by the time of Abhinavagupta, it must have been
heading towards systematisation, even as the concept of
Vakrokti, which, as old as Bhamaha, was given so much life in
the critical circles that it enlarged itself and through Kuntaka
built itself into a system. Aucitya also had assumed propor-
tions and was in search of a writer for systematisation. The

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 229

critics were speaking of Aucitya as the essence of poetry very
often, more often than Rasa even. Says Abhinavagupta in
two places criticising these critics : ‘ One cannot be indis-
creetly using the word Aucitya by itself ; Aucitya is ununder-
standable without something else to which things are “ ucita ”
— appropriate. Aucitya is a relation and that to which things
are or should be in that relation must first be grasped. That
is Rasa, nothing less and nothing else.’ Abhinavagupta first
proves that there is no meaning in Aucitya without Rasa.

I p. 13.

He again proves that Aucitya presupposes Rasa, and Dhvani
also.

p. 208. Locana.

These two passages clearly show that critics there were who
were speaking of Aucitya as the only thing enough to explain
poetry, which according to them, was beautiful words and
ideas set in perfect harmony — Aucitya. These critics had
omitted the word Rasa from their vocabulary and dispensed
with Dhvani. Abhinavagupta criticises these poor critics who
do not understand the implication of what they say. Aucitya
implies, presupposes and means ‘ suggestion of Rasa ’ —
i.e., the doctrines of Rasa and Dhvani.

230

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

Abhinavagupta thus takes his stand on the tripod of Rasa,
Dhvani and Aucitya. Rasa is the ‘ Atman ’ of poetry and the
fact is that it is so only through the process of Dhvani.
Again Rasa is or can be so only through Aucitya. Thus
these three are very intimately and inseparably associated
together. Aucitya is as inseparably associated with Dhvani
as with Rasa. If an Alahkara is said to suit, to be ‘ ucita ’ to,
a Bhava, it means that the Alahkara effectively suggests that
Bhava ; if there is said to be Gunaucitya, it means the Rasa
there is suggested by the Guna. A word, a gender, a mere
exclamation — these are said to be ‘ ucita and how^ ? The test
of Aucitya, its proof, is the suggestion of Rasa.

Another point which Abhinavagupta pointed out was that
the breach of Aucitya resulted in ‘ Abhasata.’ A Kavya which
does not have Aucitya is Kavyabhasa, not poetry but semblance
of ^poetry. Improper Alahkara is Alahkarabhasa. If there is
Aucitya we have Rasa and sentiment ; if there is Anaucitya
due to absence of Prakrtyaucitya etc., we have Rasabhasa
and sentimentality.

5?rf»r-

Neither in his smaller Sarasvatikanthabharana nor in his
bigger S'rhgaraprakasa has Bhoja any special subject under
Bhoja ^ separate head called Aucitya. But the
concept of Aucitya is not altogether absent

‘ The Rasakalika (Madras MS. R. 2241, pp. 43-4), after giving
the several conditions causing Rasa-abhasa viz., fd#-

concludes that Anaucitya in fine is the
basis of Rasabhasa : g>?55^ %tl — f
etc. ’

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 231

from his two works. It is found in more than one place as a
basic idea underlying many principles. Long before the
concept of Aucitya dawned upon the literary circle, it was
accepted in grammar as "one of the conditions that determine
the meaning of a word in a context, when the word has more
than one meaning. The Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari says :

if It II, 315.‘

Other writers call these ‘ S'abdarthapravibhajakas Aucitya
.etc., as ‘ Anavacchinna s'abdartha vis'esa smrti hetus’. This
sense-determinant of Aucitya, Bhoja mentions twice in his
S'rhgaraprakas'a, fii st while explaining various kinds of Vivaksa
or intention in chapter seven and then in a similar context in
chapter twenty -five.

In chapter xi, Bhoja calls his magnum opus, the S'rhgara-
prakas'a by the name Sahityaprakas'a and says that, among
other things, Aucitya is inculcated therein (p. 430, vol. II,
Mad. MS.).

Bhoja realises that Aucitya is a vast and elastic principle
and that it pertains to every part of the art of poetic expression.
We first sight Aucitya in Bhoja in his section on Dosas
where he speaks of a Pada dosa called Apada, which means
that a poet must use the vocabulary suited to the character

‘ Cf. The Brhaddevata, II, 120, p. 55, Bib. Ind. edn. —

232 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

who is speaking. A vulgar and a rustic character does not
employ the same words as a refined city-bred man. The
appropriate vocabulary is one of the chief conditions that call
up the correct atmosphere. ^Inappropriate vocabulary which
is a breach of Aucitya is the Dosa called Apada. See S. K. A.
I, 23, pp. 19-20. Bhoja’s Vakyarthadosa called Virasa, which
is borrowed by him from Rudrata, emphasises a principle
of Rasa-aucitya. (See S. K. A. I, 50, p. 35.) Ratnes'vara, com-
mentator on the S. K. A., quotes here Anandavardhana’s verse on
Aucitya and Anaucitya — etc., and adds that
the three following Upama dosas also are various instances of
Anaucitya. Thirdly, the Dosa called Viruddha (S. K. A. I,
54-57), Loka virodha, Kala virodha etc., is also based on
Aucitya. These are only more definite and particularised
names for varieties of Anaucitya of Vastu or Artha. In the
sub-class of Anumana viruddha, Bhoja has a variety called
Aucitya viruddha (see p. 40. S. K. A) and illustrates it by a
case of an incorrect and inappropriate description of a low
ordinary man, a Pamara, as wearing refined silk-dress.
Fourthly, a similar instance of Anaucitya of Artha-kalpana
is mentioned by Bhoja in connection with his S'abdaguna
Bhavika. (S. K. A,, p. 58.) Here is an instance of the
larger Aucitya of Adaptation, which makes Gunas of flaws.
Besides this, there is a whole section of Vais'esika gunas at
the end of chapter I where it is shown that as a result of
circumstance, special context and Aucitya, all the Dosas may
cease to be so and may even become Gunas (S. K. A., pp. 74-
120, see esp. p. 118).^

K. A. p. 118.

* See also above pp. 202-3 and 211-2.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 233

Aucitya figures to some extent in Bhoja's Alarhkara-
section also. Bhoja opens his list of S'abdalarhkaras with the
elaboration of the idea of the choice of the appropriate
language, Bhasaucitya, which, he says, is an ornament or
Alamkara called Jati. Certain subjects are well expressed in
Sanskrit ; certain in Prakrt or Apabhrams'a. There is also
the appropriateness of country or province (Des'a) and rank
and culture of character (Patra,-uttama ; male, female etc.)
which decides the language. Bhoja and Ratneswara point
out all these Aucityas which are seen already in the eighteenth
chapter of Bharata’s N.S'. called Bhasavidhana. Bhoja him-
‘self uses the word Aucitya here and Ratnes'vara clearly
explains the Aucitya involved in this Jati S'abdalarhkana.^ In
chapter xi, Bhoja gives a Prabandha-ubhaya-guna, a compre-
hensive excellence of the S'abda and Artha of the whole work,
called “language according to the character .
What is this Anurupya except Aucitya ? This Prabandha-
bhasaucitya is only the extension of the Vakyalarhkara
called Jati (p. 432, vol. ii, S'r. Pra. Mad. MS.). The second
S'abdalaihkara of Bhoja is also a principle of Aucitya. It is
called Gati ; it is the choice of the proper poetic form, verse
(padya), prose (gadya), or mixed style (campu) and the choice of
the proper metres suggestive of Rasa in the padya-class ; this
last is only another name for Vrttaucitya. In explaining this
Gati, Bhoja himself bases his Alahkara on Aucitya of Artha
which he mentions twice here, (see S. K. A. II, 18 and 21.)

II II, 18.

’ I have spoken of these at greater length in the chapter on
Bhoja and Aucitya in my book on Bhoja’s S'rngaraprakas'a.
(Vol. I, pp. 191-195.)

234

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

In chapter xi again Bhoja speaks of this, the ‘ proper metre %
as the Prabandha-ubhaya-guna called ‘ metre according to-

f:, ^ ^ 511^-

fqqflddiajq: 1^[5pq^T I ”

p. 432, vol. II. S'r Pra. Mad. MS.

Bhoja speaks here of yet another similar principle of Aucitya,
that again as a Prabandha-ubhaya-gana, called ‘ Rasa-
anurupa sandarbhatva See above, p. 200.

All these Aucityas, Bhoja does not fail to relate to Rasa ; for
he takes these principles of Aucitya as Dosa-hana, as Guna and
as Alamkara and all these three are, according to his statement,
the means to secure the eternal presence of Rasa, Rasa-aviyoga.

Lastly Bhoja speaks of Anaucitya in the very story as
available in the original source. He says that the poet must
leave off those Dosas or Anaucityas in the source which
hinder Rasa and conceive the plot in a new manner. Bhoja
calls this Prabandha-dosa-hana and Anaucitya-parihara. (See
above, p. 218-9). Says Bhoja :

“ ^ (R^) dqfPTR, R 81 T

m: ^ (n^-

” I p. 410. Vol. II. S'r. Pra. Mad. MS.

In his S. K. A. Bhoja has the above-quoted passage on p. 642
and he has also this Karika ;

11 V. 126, p. 418.

Compare Anandavardhana III. 11 and Kuntaka IV, p. 224.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 235'

Kuntaka naturally speaks much of Aucitya which, we are
given to understand by the Locana, was a term widely current
Kuntaka circles of Sahrdayas of that time. Kuntaka

was a younger contemporary of Abhinavagupta
or wrote immediately after him. The word denoting the
essence of poetry at that time seems to be ‘ Jivita'. For we
find the Locana itself rendering the ‘ Atman ’ of Anandavardha-
na as ‘ JIvita ’ twice. Kuntaka uses the same word ‘ Jlvita’ to
praise his Vakrokti and soon Ksemendra is to use the same to
signify the place of Aucitya. The two main facts recognised by
Kuntaka in poetry are the utterance and its embellishment or
its • strikingness called Alankara or Vakrokti. Besides these,
he recognises certain general concepts which go to define his
notion of poetry. Notable among these is the idea of Sahitya.
Along with Sahitya, Kuntaka mentions two ‘ Sadharana
Gunas ’ called Aucitya and Saubhagya. These general excel-
lences pertaining to all styles of poetry are to be distinguished
from the ‘ Asadharana Gunas special qualities, which go to
distinguish styles into the graceful (sukumara), the striking
(victra), and the middling (madhyama). The Sadharana Gunas,
Aucitya and Saubhagya, are of greater importance.

~ II ” p. 72. V, J.

The first of these two Sadharana Gunas, Aucitya, is thus
defined in two verses :

li v. j. i, 53-54.

236 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

Both kinds of Aucitya are for heightening the power of ex-
pression, for developing the idea undertaken to be described.
They are very general and comprehensive, referring to all
aspects. Kuntaka describes Aucitya generally as
— proper expression. Vide pp. 72-74. V. J.

Kuntaka grasps the supreme importance of Rasa and
character, f.e., Prakrti or, as Kuntaka often says, Svabhava.
He accepts the Aucitya pertaining to these which has been
spoken of by Bharata and Anandavardhana. Other items of
Aucitya also are shown by Kuntaka, and everywhere, he points
out that all Aucitya is to develop the idea or Rasa. Firstly,
defining the speciality of S'abda and Artha in Kavya, Kuntaka
points out the ‘ Paramarthya ’ of these two. His S'abdapara-
marthya is only the Aucitya or Dhvani of Pada or Paryaya
and his Arthaparamarthya is nothing but Arthaucitya. His
Arthaparamarthya comprises cases of the propriety of minor
fancies — Pratibhaucitya. Explaining a case of the absence of
this Arthaparamarthya, Kuntaka remarks that the fancy of the
poet is contrary to the greatness of the character of Sita
and Rama. This is a case of a breach of The

test of this Aucitya is, according to Kuntaka, Rasa.

“ ^

I ” p. 21.

On page 28, mentioning the qualities in poetry which
should vie with each other, i,e., while explaining Sahitya,
Kuntaka refers to Vrttyaucitya. This is either the Aucitya

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 237

of the Kais'ikI and other Vrttis or of the Vrttis Upanagarika
etc. The latter is the Aucitya of Riti, Sahghatana, Guna or
Varna and Kuntaka calls ^ it Varnavakrata, which he deals
with at the beginning of Unmesa ii. This is a case of Varna-
Sahghatana-dhvani of Anandavardhana or Gunaucitya of
Ksemendra. Kuntaka says that letters or sounds must be
appropriate to the context and that certain letters unsuited
to certain situations may help the idea and Rasa of other
situations.

II V. J. II, 2.

^ ^ ^ I ^ 3^:

sP^ig^ITSITf^ I ”

p. 80.'

Following the principles of Alahkaraucitya pointed out by
Anandavardhana, Kuntaka speaks further of this Varnavakrata,
under which come S'abdalahkaras like Anuprasa and Yamaka,

’ Vide above p. 216, Anandavardhana, III, 3-4. ^

etc. It is of this Aucitya of Varna that Pope speaks of in his Essay
on Criticism :

’Tis not enough no harshness gives oifence,

The sound must seem an echo of the sense.

Soft is the strain when Zephyr gently blowSy
And the smooth stream in smoother numbers flows ;

But when loud surges lash the sounding shore
The hoarse rough verse should like a torrent roar.

Hear how Timotheus Varied Lays surprise,

And bid alternate Passions fall and rise. ’

238

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

that Anuprasas must not be written at a stretch and that the
repeated letters must often be changed.

II II, 4.

The first principle of all Alahkaraucita is that figures must
easily come of themselves, without the poet taking special
elfort for them. Says Kuntaka in the Vrtti on the above Karika.

^ I ^ 351:-

I p. 84.

Here Kuntaka speaks of what Anandavardhana has said that
Rasa is lost when special effort is taken to build a structure of
alliteration.

\l II Dhva. A. Il, 17.

^ 51 I p. 86.

In the second line of the Karika, Kuntaka has said what
Anandavardhana has put in another form that the same sound
effect should not be continued to a great length.

I

Sl^l^ II II, 15.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 239
^qiq 1 Locana, p. 85.

r

See Kuntaka’s Vrtti also on p. 84. Kuntaka adds another point
of Aucitya, namely that cacophony should be avoided. Con-
catenation of very unpleasant sounds like etc.,

are not to be written at all. Ksemendra quotes such verses of
a poet of hundred and more works in his Kavikanthabharana
and condemns them as devoid of even a drop of Camatkara.
These sounds by nature, says Abhinavagupta in his Abhinava
bharati, torture our ears, while there are other sounds that
seem to pour nectar into our ears.

(Dhva. A. Ill) i ^ qorf: ?i?qTqq?^q I

^ 3 3qqF?ft5R^T: ii

p. 415, vol. Ill, Abhi. bha. Mad. MS.

Of Yamakaucitya pointed out by Rudrata and by Ananda-
vardhana Kuntaka speaks thus :

qqsR qiq 11 ii, 6-7.

q^q: 3^ qq^qqq^i qq

The few and rare cases of ‘ Rasavad Yamakas’ are called by
Kuntaka ^ ‘qq’^^if&T qqqilft” p. 87.

The suggestive Pratyaya of Anandavardhana is Pratya-
yavakrata, having Aucitya to the context, according to Kuntaka.
This is a case of Pratyayaucitya, the propriety of the definite
Pratyaya or its effectiveness in suggesting the idea or emotion.

240

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'iSTRA

II II, 17.

Here are given two instances of very proper, striking and
suggestive use of the present participle : and

Lingadhvani or Lihgavakrata or Liiigaucitya is described
on pp. 114-115; II, 23.

^a^iiqrqfq I

?T5t gpqr (I II, 23.

I

Kuntaka thus often speaks of this Aucitya of every element
to the idea (Vastu) or emotion (Rasa). He calls it Prastutau-
citya or Svabhavaucitya or Vastvaucitya. He speaks of it
again while describing the fivefold Kriyavaicitryavakratva, II^

25, p. 227.

A case of Tense-x\ucitya is mentioned by Kuntaka in II,

26. It is to promote the Aucitya of the idea to the Rasa that

the poet adopts the Upagrahaucitya is dealt

with also by Kuntaka. The poet chooses one of the two —
Atmanepada and Parasmaipada — on the score of Aucitya.

Unmesa III thus describes Prakrtyaucitya which Kuntaka
calls the Svabhavaucitya of various beings and things.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 241

^ II III, 5-7.

Of Vyavaharaucitya or Lokavrttaucitya, which idea is the
basis of Bharata’s Natya, Kuntaka speaks in III, 9, p. 155.
Thus we see how largely the idea of Aucitya looms in
Kuntaka. As a matter of fact, in almost all cases of Kuntaka’s
Vakrata, the test or proof of the strikingness or charm is this
Aucitya of the various elements with reference to the Vastu
or Rasa the depicting of which is the work of the poet.
Vakrokti is only another name for Aucitya ! For Kuntaka
says of Pada-aucitya that it is Pada-vakrata.

V. J. p. 76.

As more than once pointed out already, many of the instances
of Anandavardhana’s Dhvani, Abhinavagupta’s Vaicitrya men-
tioned in the Abhinavabharatl, Kuntaka’s Vakrata and Ksemen-
dra’s Aucitya are identical. Many items of Vakrata mentioned
by Kuntaka are seen in the Abhinavabharatl as cases of Vaicitrya,
with exactly the same or similar illustrations and Abhinavagupta
says that the same idea is called Suptiiigdhvani by Anandavar-
dhana and Subadivakrata by others.^ There is bound to be
this close relation between Aucitya, Dhvani and Vakrata.
Criticising Kuntaka’s definition of poetry as S'abda and Artha
siet in Vakrokti, Mahimabhatta says in V. V., Vimaras'a I :
‘ The “ out-of-the-way-ness ” of poetic word and idea as

* See my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhinavabharatl,
Journal of Oriental Research^ Vol. VI. pp. 219-22.

16

242 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

distinguished from those of S'astra and Loka must either be the
Aucitya, so very essential to Rasa which is the “ Atman ” of
poetry or be the Dhvani of Anandavardhana. If therefore the
new Vak^lokti is only Aucitya (which as a matter of fact figures
largely in Kuntaka’s treatment of his subject), nothing new
is said. If this is denied, the only other possibility is that
Vakrokti is nothing but a new name for Dhvani which really
seems to be the fact. For the same varieties and the same
instances as given by Anandavardhana are given by Kuntaka.’

2T?3?r: ‘515^15^ ’

JTF , 1

5|cf!??rrT5nf^5qf^q7 I

3?T:

^ q^r5;T: I

V. V. I, p. 28.

Mahimabhatta wrote in the same age, just after Abhinava-
gupta and Kuntaka. Mahima accepts Rasa as supreme and also
the Aucitya pertaining to Rasa, Bhava and

Mahimabhatta . ^ ^

Prakrti. He could not escape the idea of
Aucitya which was in its season then. As his criticism of
Kuntaka’s definition of poetry by Vakrokti shows, critics of his
time were aware of only two things as specially distinguishing
the poetic Jutterance from the ordinary or S'astraic one, viz,,
Aucitya and Dhvani. Of these two, there is no need to specially

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 243

speak of the former because Mahima considers it as the
supreme necessity in so far as Kavya is accepted as utterance
ensouled by Rasa. That ""is, according to Mahima, there can
be no opposition to Aiicitya. It is only with Dhvani that
he fights.

5i5?TW:

I nf?i5.q’P«lTJTlfr[>fq5'JT;

I ^5r ^ 5if#q n;q i

ff q^f'tS^TTqR:. JTiqT: I ^ =q 5qR5?’':qqRT;

V. V. I, p. 28.

On the point of Rasa and tlie Aucitya of every element of
expression to this Rasa, Mahima is completely in agreement with
Anandavardhana. Anandavardhana says that if there is one
word which is Nirasa, devoid of Rasa, it is the greatest literary
flaw, the Apas'abda, Similarly all flaws are comprised in
one common flaw, v)iz., hindrance to the realisation of Rasa.
All Dosas are hindrances to Rasa and Mahima calls them by
the common name Anaucitya. He quotes Anandavardhana’s
memorable Karika on this subject.

^fScT: ^5^-

244 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

5FH0T»J: I
II

V. V. I, p. 31.

Certain ideas get certain writers as their brilliant exponents.
Thus Sahitya gets Kuntaka as its first great exponent. To
Mahima falls the share of expounding two ideas, Svabhavokti
and Dosas. The most important part of Mahima’s work is
chapter II of his V. V., devoted to a study of five important
flaws of expression, on which the classic Kavya Prakas^a, the
model for later compilations, draws for its own Dosaprakarana
to a great extent. These five flaws, and all others also, are only
the many varieties of Anaucitya which means hindrance to
Rasapratiti. For Aucitya of Rasa and Prakrti is the greatest
Guna, most essential for Kavya. The absence of this Aucitya
is the greatest Dosa within which every other Dosa is included.
Aucitya and Anaucitya pertain to the content, i.e., Rasa and
Artha or Vastu, as well as to the outer garment of the Rasa and
Vastu, viz,, the expression — S'abda. The former is Abhyantara
or Antaranga — internal, while the latter is Bahiranga —
external. Even the unsuggestive or inappropriate metre is an
Anaucitya, one belonging to the latter category. Among
S'abdanaucityas, Mahima says that five are to be specially
noted; they are five Dosas named Vidheyavimars'a, Prakrama-
bheda, Kramabheda, Paunaruktya and Vacyavacana.

If m I

^51 #3 ^ rTJJTT^r-

^ I mi 3^:

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 245

I

I . . . . 'T^

=eef;^ 1 ii. V. V. p. 37.

Ksemendra was the pupil of Acarya Abhinavagupta in
poetics. Ksemendra first wrote a work on Poetics called
Kavikarnika * which is unfortunately lost to
Ksemendra Perhaps in it he dealt with Rasa and

Dhvani. Our sense of its loss is keen because, in his critical
•writings spared to us we find many a touch of originality.
Ksemendra’s Kavikanthabharana and Suvrttatilaka have only
slight and subsidiary interest for us. It is his Aucitya*
vicaracarca we are concerned here wdth, a small work which
yet belongs to the class of ‘ Prasthana-works ’ like those of
Bhamaha, Dandin, Vamana, Anandavardhana, Kuntaka and
Mahimabhatta. As is plain from the above-gone survey of the
concept of Aucitya, Ksemendra is not the author of Aucitya,
but, as in the case of Vakrokti and Kuntaka, Ksemendra
made Aucitya into a system, elaborating that concept and
applying it to all parts of the Kavya. Ksemendra only worked
out Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta in whose system he
had his being. Abhinavagupta criticised those critics w^ho glibly
talked of Aucitya without reference to Rasa and Dhvani which
alone render Aucitya intelligible. Just as Kuntaka's Vakrokti
proceeds only after accepting Rasa as supreme and accepts
akso Dhvani, so also Ksemendra’s Aucitya. Ksemendra first
posits Rasa as the soul of poetry, as the thing whose presence
makes Kavya ; Aucitya is its life — ‘ Jivita The term ‘ Jivita ,

as can be seen from the two quotations given above, was used

Vide Au. V. C., K. M. Gucchaka 1, p. 115. S'l. 2.

246 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

by Abhinavagupta to denote Rasadhvani with Aucitya. Thus
Abhinavagupta used both the words ‘ Atman ’ and ‘ Jivita ’ as
interchangeable and as meaning generally the essence —
But Ksemendra made a subtle distinction between
Soul and Life, Rasa the Atman and Aucitya the Life.^ These
two metaphorical names and the relation between them in
metaphysical speculations point to the fact of the intimate
relation between Rasa and Aucitya and of how both come into
existence together. Ksemendra’s attitude to Rasa is thus
plainly stated even in the opening:

II S'l. 3.

It is to explain Rasa, by which Kavya is already explained,
that Ksemendra offers Aucitya. Aucitya is the very life of
Rasa, the soul of poetry and this is the natural view of Aucitya
in the texts of Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. In a
verse or in a Kavya, Aucitya gives Camatkara, Aucitya which
is the life of Rasa. Rasa is the thing to which Aucitya is the
greatest relation in which other things exist. He again says :

I s'l. 5.

I p. 115.

' Jayamangalacarya’s Kavis'iksa (Peterson’s 1 Report, Last
list, App. I, pp. 78-9) calls Aucitya the ‘ Jivita ’ of poetry.

C/. also the Sahityamimamsa (TSS. 114, p. 154) :

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 247

We had observed before that Aucitya is as unintelligible
without Dhvani as without Rasa. As a matter of fact it had
its greatest exposition at tlje hands of Anandavardhana only as
a supplementary idea in the system of Rasadhvani ; for, to
Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, the Soul (Atman) of
poetry is ^ ^ and the three are inseparable.

But such an explicit mention and acceptance of Dhvani, as
of Rasa, are not found in the Au. V. C. But Dhvani is all
throughout implied. We had said that the test and proof of
Aucitya is Dhvani, the suggestion of Rasa or idea. Showing
the propriety of Pada (which is a case of Padadhvani with
Anandavardhana), ix., Padaucitya in a verse, Ksemendra saj^s
that Aucitya in that word pleases us because that word in
particular suggests the state of separation and the consequent
suffering, ix., the Vipralambha Rasa :

1 similarly in all instances of
all kinds of Aucitya, Ksemendra must have sufficiently and
clearly based his explanations of Aucitya scientifically on the
principle of Dhvani. P'or, it is from Anandavardhana that
the concept of Aucitya took new life.

In most cases, Dhvani, Vakrokti and Aucitya are merely
the more specific names for the Camatkara in a certain point.
In his commentary on chapter XV, the opening chapter of the
Vacikabhinaya section of the Natyas'astra, Abhinavagupta uses
another word for this Camatkara, viz., Vaicitrya, strikingness
or beauty or charm. Bharata gives ten grammatical divisions
of words and Abhinavagupta says that everything in poetry,
gender, number, name, case etc., has to be ‘ vicitra wonderful
or striking. Having explained the Vaicitrya of all elements of
language in poetry, Abhinavagupta reconciles to this Vaicitrya
of his the Dhvani of Sup, Ting, Vacana etc., of Anandavar-
dhana (Ud. Ill) and the Vakrata of Sup. etc., of others

248

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

(Anye) meaning Kuntaka or those of whose ideas Kuntaka
is the systematic exponent.' To these can be reconciled
Ksemendra’s Aucit3'a of Pada, Kriya, Karaka, Lihga, Vacana,
Upasarga, Nipata etc. Again Suptihgdhvani, Subadivakrata,
Subadivaicitrya or Subadyaucitya is the same as some of
the ten different kinds of Camatkara, Camatkara in S'abda,
in Artha etc., given by Ksemendra in the third section
of his Kavikanthabharana. As a matter of fact there
is nothing new in Ksemendra’s Aucitya of Pada etc., except
appreciation under a different name of the same points
mentioned by Anandavardhana in Uddyota III of his work
under the heads of Dhvani of Pada, Sup. etc., forming
the numerous parts of the Vyahjaka. The Au. V. C. is vastly
indebted to the third chapter of the Dhva. A. On the subject
of Rasaucitya alone, while explaining Viruddha rasa sama-
ves'a, combining of two contradictory sentiments, Ksemendra
quotes Anandavardhana’s verse on the subject, (p. 134. Au.
V. C.) Except for this one quotation, it must be stated
that in this tract of his which only works out Ananda-
vardhana’s ideas, Ksemendra has not paid adequate homage to
Anandavardhana. He grows eloquent on Aucitya in the
opening but strangely does not even quote the famous verse
of Anandavardhana, etc.

Ksemendra has elaborated and pointed out some more
principles of Aucitya in the wider sphere of thought — Artha
and Arthasandarbha. Most of the things in this class like
Aucityas of Des'a, KMa, Vrata, Tattva, Sattva, Svabhava,
Sarasahgraha and Avastha are comprehended in Prakrty-
aucitya and in the absence of the flaw of Loka-agama»virodha,

' Vide p. 367, Vol. II, chap. xiv. Abhi. Bha, Mad. MS. Vide
also my article on Writers Quoted in the Abhi. Bha. in the Journal
of Oriental Research^ Madras, Vol. VI, Part III, p. 221. See
also above, this same chapter on this point.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 249

which is pointed out by all writers from Bhamaha and Dandin,
which is part of Aucitya, and can be said to be generally in-
cluded in Prakrtyaucitya itself which is as old as Bharata or can
be separately called as Lokasvabhauaucitya. The Pratibhau-
citya given by Ksemendra concerns with the minor ‘ fancies ’
and not with poetic imagination or genius as a whole. Simi-
larly innumerable items of Aucitya can be elaborated and so
does Ksemendra say in the end: ^

I ^ P- 60. As for instance, the propriety of metre,
Vrttaucitya, is an interesting study. Bharata has spoken of
it in his chapters on Vrttas and Dhruvas, xvi and xxxii.
Abhinavagupta quotes in his Abhi. Bha. Katyayana, an old
writer on metres, on the appropriateness of certain metres to
certain subjects, moods and situations.

I etc.’

Ksemendra reserves this subject for special treatment in his
Suvrttatilaka. (Vinyasa iii. S'ls. 7-16).

II

etc.

Ksemendra then goes to explain with illustrations what situ-
ations and subjects should be depicted in what metres.
Though there is bound to be a large amount of subjectivism

‘ Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. VI, Part III,
p. 223, my article on Writers Quoted in the Abi. Bharati.

250

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'ASTRA

and impressionism in this study, though, even as regards the
question of relation of Ragas and Rasas in music, in this
enquiry also, it may be that one same metre has many emo-
tional significances, there is some truth in some principles of
Vrttaucitya like the association of long metres like Sragdhara
with descriptions of war, Vira, Raudra and Bibhatsa Rasas
and the use of Anustubhs for narration, brief summing up
and pointed speech.

The concept of Aucitya was born as a supplement to
Rasa and Dhvani and is so developed by Ksemendra, though
it must be stated that the latter, Dhvani, is not specifically
spoken of by him. From the verses in the beginning which
state the doctrine of Aucitya in general, it is plain, that like
Rasa and Dhvani, Aucitya came in as a severe criticism of
a merely physical or ‘ materialistic ’ or a jeweller’s philosophy
of poetry which made much only of Alaiikaras and Gunas.
This is true not of the critical literature of Ksemendra’s time ;
for Rasa had been established firmly as the soul of poetry
in poetics and the discussion yet going on was only on the
process of the realisation of that Rasa, whether it was Dhvani,
Anumana, Bhavana and Bhoga or Tatparya and so on.
But it is true of literary practice, of what the poets them-
selves were doing. Ksemendra’s Aucitya is another and final
criticism of Alankaras.

m JT II

mi II S'ls. 4-5.

501T 5DTT; 11 s'l. 6.

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 251

^ i^ ^g:3Tf^2n5qf^=c5^T s'!!!: 501 ^ 1 ^ 11 -
3i;qsiT 'i^^^l'JIT 1 p. 116.

An illustrative verse (which elaborates, as pointed out at the
beginning of this paper, a verse on the same subject in
Bharata) is also cited b}’ Ksemendra :

fRiJT

qi^it %?jirqT7rsT qi 1

• • qoi^. W-m\, k

mi ^f% Rrig^ ?fi^^:^i%JTf g<JiT: 11

Bharata xxiii. 64 :

'^'^51^1 t| 1

^ fTf2iTlqTq=^TqH 11

Bharata says this in respect of music also where the alahkaras
of music must be utilized only according to Rasa.

N. S', xxxix, 73-4, p. 335-6 Kasi edn.

Thus well has it been said by Anandavardhana that Aucitya is
the greatest secret of Rasa and Anaiicitya, the greatest enemy.

The section on Poetics in the Agni purana contains little
by way of any development of the concept of Aucitya ; but it is
also noticed here because it shows some ingen -
^purtpa * original reshuffling of concepts and

gives this concept of Aucitya as an Alaiikara
of both S'abda and Artha, an Ubhayalahkara. 345/2 and 5.

252

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

3Ttof^f?frI II

?tf^; 1^: ^(^T)«^T W. I

II

‘‘ Riti in accordance with theme and Vrtti in accordance with
Rasa ; expression, forceful or soft (as occasion demands) —
thus is Aucitya engendered/’

The unpublished Rasarnavalahkara (Mad. MS.) of Praka-
s'avarsa is somewhat important. It is another work which

Prakas'avarsa speaks of Aucitya as a whole as an Alahkara,
but differs from the Agni purana in holding

it as a S'abdalahkara.

• ■ • • ■

p. 16. Mad. MS.

Some valuable ideas on Aucitya are also given by Prakas'a-
varsa. He defines Aucitya as the spirit of mutual help
betw^een sound and sense, between word and idea, S'abda and
Artha, and as an element which makes poetry great. He adds
that to Sahrdayas, Anaucitya is the greatest offence.

^q;qkTq^ ... 1; (rtIo 5«^cq li

HISTORY OF AUCTTYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 253

Prakas'avarsa gives a new twofold classification of Aucitya but
does not explain the varieties further. He says that others
have said enough on this subject.’

There is one more point to be considered before closing
this account of Aucitya. Bharata has said® that Hasya Rasa
or the sentiment of laughter is produced by
smTH^sva Anukrti and Abhasa. It has been pointed out
above that Abhinavagupta remarks in his
Locana that Anaiicitya is at the root of Abhasa, as in the case
of the S'rngarabhasa of Ravana for Sita. We can only laugh
at it. So it is that Laulya, which is proposed as a Rasa by
some, is made by Abhinavagupta an accessory in Hasya Rasa.^
In the Abhinava bharati on the text of Bharata which explains
the origin of Hasya Rasa, Abhinavagupta discusses what con-
stitutes the basis of the comic and points out that Anaucitya is
at the root of the comic/ Aucitya is Rasa and Anaucitya is
Rasabhasa and Hasya Rasa. The illustrative verse quoted by
Ksemendra gives a series of Anaucitya and concludes
^ Surely one with a girdle round the neck and a

necklace at the foot will be laughed at. So it is that Bharata
also says :

xxiii, 69.

This takes us to another aspect of poetry and of Aucitya.
In poetry of Rasa, Aucitya is the very life, Jivita; but in

^ Vide Journal of Oriental Research, Vol. VUI. Part 3 for an
account of Prakas'avarsa and his work.

® N. S'. VI, p. 296 ‘Gaek. edn.

" Vide p. 342, Abhi. Bha., Gaek. edn.

^ Pp. 296-297. Abhi. Bha.. Gaek. edn. A study of mine on
the Comic Element in Skr. Literature (on the theory of Hasya
and its treatment by poets) will be published

254

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALAWKARA S'aSTRA

comic writing, the very life of its Rasa, i.e., Rasabhasa or
Hasya Rasa, is Anaucitya. Anaucitya is the secret of comic
writing. We can well say :

It is only with various forms of Anaucitya that Hasya can be
developed ; all Dosas of speech and thought occur in S'akara
and we have alread}^ pointed out above how Nyunopama and
Adhikopama are the secrets of satire and parody. Inappro-
priateness is at the root of all varieties of the ridiculous and
the laughable, and this has been shown by Abhinavagupta in
his Abhi. Bha. :

p. 297. Gaek. edn.

Thus Anaucitya is the Aucitya in Hasya Rasa. This Aucitya
is that aspect called ‘adaptation’ by virtue of which, flaws
become excellences, by change of circumstances. The incohe-
rent and the inappropriate themselves become appropriate.
Just as S'rutidusta, a flaw in Srhgara, is a great Guna in
Raudra and this adaptation is one Aucitya, so also Anaucitya
which spoils all Rasas, and is the greatest Rasadosa, is the
greatest Rasaguna in Hasya. This is of course said of the
fundamental basis, the root cause, Vibhava, of Hasya Rasa
and of those conditions of inappropriateness, oddities and
ludicrousness which are the stuff of which Hasya is made.
And in the delineation of this Anaucitya itself producing
Hasya, in expression and in all other parts, principles of
internal Aucitya have to be observed. There are two old
verses on this subject of how Anaucitya becomes Aucitya,

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 255

of how Dosas become Gunas and of how adaptation and
appropriateness are the only rule.

0-5 II

(Chaya of a Prakrt Gatha).

>1^: srrfq^FJ I

q?T 5 iTT(; 11

Magha. S'. V. II, 44.

It is all some kind of relativity in the realm of poetry.
There is no absolute Guna and Dosa but only Ucita and
Anucita ; and the poet takes up even Anaucitya to make
Aucitya out of it. The poet’s attitude is as free and open in
this respect as in respect of the question of morality in poetry.

It is this Aucitya which Robert Bridges speaks of in his
essay on Poetic Diction under the name ‘ Keeping a concept
borrowed from Painting and which he describes as the
‘ harmonising of medium ’. The following line of his explains
his idea further : ' But in Aesthetic no Property is absurd if
it is in keeping ’. Bridges speaks here of absurdity (Dosa)
ceasing to be so and becoming a Guna (Vais'esika) because of
Aucitya (keeping).

Three doctrines form the great and noteworthy contribu-
tions of Sanskrit Alahkara Literature to the world’s literature
on Literary Criticism, They are Rasa, Dhvani

Conclusion

and Aucitya.^ Aucitya is a very large principle
within whose orbit comes everything else. The Aucitya-rule
of criticism is obeyed by all others, including Rasa.

^A survey and review of Western Literary Criticism from
Aristotle to Abercrombie from the point of view of Skr. Alankara
S'astra has been made by me in a separate study.

256

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

Mahamahopadhyaya Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastriar puts
the whole evolution of Skr. Poetics from Alahkara to Aucitya
in a Karika and illustrates it with a graph. Within the
big circle of Ksemendra’s Aucitya, there are three view-
points in the shape of a triangle. The topmost point of the
triangle is the undisputed Rasa of Bharata, which Ananda-
vardhana and Abhinavagupta accept as the ‘ Soul ’ of poetry
and 'which critics of Dhvani like Bhatta Nayaka and Mahi-
mabhatta and other theorists like Kuntaka accept. Lower
down, the two points of the triangle are the two prominent
theories, opposed to each other, regarding the process of
realising Rasa, viz., the Dhvani of Anandavardhana and
the Anumiti of Mahimabhatta. Anumiti is mentioned only
as ‘ upalaksana ’ and it stands for other anti-dhvani theories
also, like the Bhavana and Bhoga of Bhatta Nayaka, Tatparya
etc. Within this triangle is a smaller circle named after
the Vakrokti of Kuntaka. This circle again contains a triangle
within it, the topmost point of which is Vamana's RTti,y
a concept decidedly superior to and more comprehensive
than the tw^o lower points called Guna and Alahkara of
Dandin and Bhamaha. Beginning with Alahkara, the theories
get superior or more comprehensive one by one. The
Alahkara-guna-rlti modes of criticism deal with diction and
style in the lower sense of the terms and are classed under
one bigger current of the study of form culminating in
the comprehensive Vakrokti-circle of Kuntaka, wliich is also
an approach to poetry from the formal side. The next, the
bigger triangle begins the current of the study of the content,
of the inner essence of poetry, viz., Rasa and the process,
the technique by which the poet delineates it and the Sahrdaya
gets it. All these are comprehended in the outermost
circle of Aucitya which pertains to Rasa and everything else in

HISTORY OF AUCITYA IN SANSKRIT POETICS 257

Kavya. All the other theories only run at the back of Aucitya
which leads the van. If there is a harmony or a beauty as
such, innate in every part of a great poetry, it is this Auciti.

The Karika and the graph explained above are given
below :

Mm. Prof. S. Kuppuswami S'astriar

17

THE EVOLUTION OF THE NAMES OF
SANSKRIT POETICS

AND KRIYA-KALPA

A PRE-BHAMAHA NAME OF THE ALANKARA S'ASTRA

It will not be a surprise if on examining the history of the
several names of a branch of knowledge in its long course
through the centuries, one finds that it is not always the
survival of the best that is the rule in the realm of nomen-
clatura! evolution. This is borne out by an examination of
the names of the subject of Sanskrit Poetics also which is
called Alankdra S'dstra, not because of the absolute appro-
priateness of that name. The name of the concept of
Alankara stuck to the whole subject even though the concept
itself got dethroned after a time.

In English the subject called Literary Criticism has the
old name Poetics or the Study of Poetry and we have
Aristotle’s work on the subject called Poetics. In Sanskrit,
the most common name for the subject and as a matter of
fact, the only name which finally stood, is Alankara S'astra.
Sometimes we have in its place the name Sdhitya Vidyd,

says Rajas'ekhara. (K. M. p. 4).
The name Sahitya is very much later than the name Alan-
kara. It was evidently born out of Grammar and it slowly

NAMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS

259

came to denote poetry itself upon the basis of Bhamaha’s
definition of poetry * :

I I, 16. K. A.

Sahitya was gaining some importance after the time of
Anandavardhana. It was taken up by tw o prominent writers
who came immediately after Abhinavagupta, namely, Bhoja
and Kuntaka. Sometime afterwards, we had the first regular
work on Poetics which took the name Sahitya, namely, the
Sahitya Mimamsa of Ruyyaka. After this, the word was in
greater use and in later Alahkara literature one of the most
important works had this name, namely, the Sahityadarpana of
Viswanatha. Whenever accomplishments of men of taste were
referred to, the word Sahitya was always used along with
Sahgita. Though not as old as Alahkara, Sahitya is the only
name of Sanskrit poetics, which became as common as Alahkara.

Sahitya means the poetic harmony, the beautiful mutual
appropriateness, the perfect mutual understanding, of S'abda
and Artha. The concept is of great significance and I have dealt
with it and its history in a chapter in my book ‘ Bhoja’s S'rhgara
Prakas'a.’ Compared with Sahitya, the name Alahkara is of
less poetic worth. It is a reminder of that stage in the history
of Sanskrit Poetics W'hen the concept of Alahkara was sitting
high on the throne of poetic expression. The Alahkara-age
of Sanskrit Poetics is much older than Bhamaha and lived up
to the time of Udbhata, Vamana and Rudrata. Its last great
votaries were Bhoja and Kuntaka. Bhamaha’s work is called
Kavyalahkara ; Udbhata, who commented upon Bhamaha,
names his independent w-ork on the subject as Kavyalahkara-
sarasahgraha ; Vamana and Rudrata only follow and name

^See my thesis Bhoja’s S'rhgara Prakas'a, Vol. I, pt. 1,
PD. 87-110.

260 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

their works also as Kavyalahkara. Though Dandin seems to
be an exception, he only proves the rule; for, though he calls
his work Kavyadars'a or Mirror of Poetry, he is the writer
who pays the greatest tribute to Alahkara. These ancients,
the Alahkara-vadins, took Alahkara as the beautiful expression
and as the distinguishing mark of poetry, and considered even
the Rasas as only subserving this beauty of expression. Bhoja
ardently walks behind Dandin and in his stupendous S'rhgara-
prakas'a, erects a new and huge throne for Alahkara. Gunas
Alahkaras, Ritis, Vrttis, Sandhis, Laksanas, Rasas, Language,
Metre, Form of composition, namely, epic, drama etc., — why,
everything is Alahkara to Bhoja.^ The Alahkara-age of
Sanskrit Poetics which can roughly be marked off as ending
with Rudrata, is also a very significant period in the history of
Sanskrit Poetics. For, it is the analysis of the Alahkaras
that led to the rise of Vakrokti and in another direction
through such Alahkaras as Dipaka, Samasokti, Paryayokta
containing a suggested element, gave rise to the concept of
suggestion, Dhvani. Vakrokti is a continuation of Alahkara ;
its greatest exponent, Kuntaka, describes his work, the Vakrokti
Jivita as Kavyalahkara.

I I. 2.
i vrtti. p. 3 .

V. J., De’s Edn.

It is as a result of the importance of this Alahkara-stage
of Sanskrit Poetics that the whole system got itself named
after one of the several elements of poetry, Alahkara. Says
Kumarasvamin :

* See my Bhoja’s S'mgara Prakas'a, Vol. I, pt. ii, chapter on
Bhoja’s Conception of Alahkara.

NAMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS

261

p. 3, Ratnapana on the Pi'ataparudrlya ; Balamanorama Edn.
At the hands of Vamana, Alahkara gained greater propor-
tions ; it expanded and attained greater significance and beauty.
It came to him from Dandin and when he turned that stone of
Alaiikara handed to him, he found it flashing diverse hues. He
realized that it meant Beauty. It had come to mean not only
the small graces of the S'abdalankaras and the figures of speech
called Arthalankaras but also the absence of all flaws and the
presence of all excellences, in fact the sum-total of the beauty
of poetic utterance as such, distinguished from other utter-
ances. To Vamana, Alankara was Beauty, Saundarya,

For the nonce, it seems as if Poetics has got a new' and
comprehensive name, Saundarya Sdstra. The w ord ‘ Sundara’,
the Beautiful, baffles analysis. We have to resign to the
magic of the poet’s genius ultimately, to w hat Bhatta Nayaka
and Kuntaka would call Kavivydpdra, Stindara and Saun-
darya are w ords w hich Abhinavagupta uses very often in his
descriptions of poetry in the Locana on the Dhvanyaloka.
The synonym Cdru (^1^) is also used by Anandavardhana.

1. p. 5 Anandavardhana.

and P* 8 Anandavardhana.

• p. 13 Anandavardhana.
p. 27 Anandavardhana.

2. i

I Abhinavagupta, Locana, p. 29.

5T ^ ^ ^ ^m\^: ?tT?-

W ; 3 I Ibid. p. 72.

262

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKiRA S'aSTRA

Beauty is the primary factor and in its absence neither
Alankara nor Dhvani can have any claim to be called such or
make for poetry.

^ ‘ ?ian I ‘ I

‘ ?T^5fTwq;; i . . . . i

5T I Abhinavagupta, Locana, p. 210.

This is said of Alankara by Abhinavagupta and the point
is stressed by Bhoja also in his S'rhgaraprakas'a (Chap. XI,
p. 371, Vol. II, Madras MS.), where he says that the statement
cannot be considered any Alankara, because it is
devoid of the primary characteristic common to all Alahkaras
(Alahkara-samanya-laksana), namely, S'ofe/nl, which is Beauty.
Such a significant interpretation, Bhoja gives to Dandin’s
description of Alankara, cRjsq^yqirR I

The point is further stressed in a well-known passage by
Appayya Diksita in his Citra mlmarhsa.

?fqfsfq pgqr

^ ^ ^ I ‘ . I

p. 6. N. S. Edn.

The same condition of the necessity of beauty applies to
Dhvani also. It is not enough if one tries to point out in a
case the existence of some technical Dhvani. Even Dhvani
has to be beautiful.

Locana, p. 17.

NAMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS

263

Commenting on Anandavardhana’s

etc., (p. 27, Dhva. A.)

Abhinavagupta says :

etc., Locana, p. 28.

Therefore the poetic beauty is the real soul of poetic ex^
pression. Abhinavagupta accepts that Beauty is the essence,
the soul of the art.

I JrT% ^^4 I p. 33, Locana.

It is this Beauty that is otherwise called Camatkara on
which word Vis'ves'vara, the author of the Camatkaracandrika,
takes his stand. The words Vicchitti, Vaicifrya, and even
the word Vakratd finally mean only Beauty. It is the same,
the beautiful in poetry, that is meant by the Ramaniya in
Jagannatha’s definition of poetry. From this point of view,
it seems that there was good chance for a new name for
Poetics, namely Saundarya S^dstra, but it did not come up.
The name Saundarya S^dstra would correspond to the western
name Aesthetics. In the western literature on the subject,
the words, the Beautiful and the Sublime, are met with.
There are the works such as that of Longinus on the Sublime.
One whole chapter, in his work, ‘ What is Art ?’, is devoted
by Tolstoy to an examination of the works on Beauty. But
the study of Beauty and Sublimity, Aesthetics or Saundarya
S^dstra, does not strictly mean Poetics but embraces the critical
appreciation of all Fine Arts, including sculpture, painting and

music.

264 SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

In Uddyota I and elsewhere, Anandavardhana refers to
writers on Poetics as Kavya-laksana-karins, for, those who
wrote on poetry did so with the idea of defining Poetry.
(Dhva. A. pp. 8, 10, etc.) And Kdvya-laksana can also be
taken as a general appellation applied to Poetics in the days
of the reign of Alankara and even earlier. Bhamaha, who
opens his work with the w'ords —

closes it thus with the name Kavya-laksana :

3TW2T I

Dandin proposes in 1. 2 of his work to write Kavya-
laksana :

All these names, Kavyadaksana, Alankara and Sahitya,
are however later names. Before Bhamaha and before the
names Alankara and the much less definite Kavya-laksana
came into vogue, what was the name of the subject of
Sanskrit Poetics?

It is the list of the sixty-four arts — Catussasti Kalah —
given by Vatsyayana in his Kamasutras that gives out the
first glimmer in this connection. After mentioning ‘the com-
posing of poetry * — Kavya kriya — and two of tue subjects
helpful to that purpose namely, Lexicon (Abhidhana kos'a) and
Prosody (Chandojnana), Vatsyayana gives a subject called
KRIYA-KALPA. (I. iii. 16, p. 32.) What does this Kriya-
kalpa mean ? Coming close upon composing of poetry^
Lexicon and Prosody, it is very likely that Kriya-kalpa

NAMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS

265

is a subject related to literature and poetry. A reference
to the Jayamahgala upon this reveals to us that Kriya-kalpa
means Poetics or Alahkara S'astra.

| tanfq (U. Abhidhana, Chandas
and Alankara) ^ 1 p. 39. To

explain, Kriya-kalpa must be expanded into Kavya-kriya-
kalpa, a practical treatise showing the way to compose
poems.

The name Kriya-kalpa consists of the two words — Kriya
meaning kavya-kriyd and Kalpa meaning vidhi, Kriya-kalpa
•is -the correct word. S'rTdhara’s commentary on the Bhaga-
vata reads it wrongly as Kriya-vikalpa and that wrong form
is given in the list of sixty-four kalas in the S'abdakalpa-
druma and the Vacaspat^’a, both of which reproduce from
S'ridhara. Relying on this reading, Mr. P. K. Acharya,
in an article on Fine Arts in the Indian Historical Quarterly,
(Vol. V, p. 206), says that Kriyavikalpa is the art of “ deri-
v^ation and conjugation of verbs in various ways ” and that
“ it refers to grammar and poetics as Yas'odhara says ” ! If
the reading Kriya-vikalpa is taken as correct and is inter-
preted as verbs and their derivation and conjugation, where
does Poetics come in ? And nobody says that it refers to
grammar.

The Lalita vistara's list of Kalas mentions this Kriyakalpa.
See p. 156, Lefmann’s Edn.

Dandin says in his Kavyadars'a, I. 9 :

Here he refers to his predecessors who wrote Kriya-vidhi.
Vidhi simply means kalpa and here there is an indirect

266

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKlRA S'iSTRA

reference to the name Kriya-kalpa, which Vatsyayana has
acquainted us with. Tarunavacaspati explains Dandin’s Kriya-
vidhi as Racand-prakdra and the Hrdayarhgama, as Kriyd-
vidhdna which mean the same as the Kdvya-karana-vidhi of
the Jayamahgala.

In a list of the sixty-four Kalas attributed to Bhamaha
and quoted on p. 29 of Tippabhupala’s Kamadhenu on Varna-
na’s K. A. S. and Vr., which list closely agrees with that of
Vatsyayana, we have in the place of Kriyd-kalpa, the word
Kdvyadaksana. This again proves that Kriya-kalpa is the
correct word and that it is an old name for the Alahkara
S'as'tra.

Lastly, w^e find Kriya-kalpa mentioned in the Uttara-
kanda of the Ramayana, along with many other arts and
branches of knowledge. Though much of the present Uttara-
kanda may be later accretion, it may be that the cantos on the
banishment of Sita and the recitation of the epic by her two
sons are genuine or at least older parts of the epic. Their
superior literary merit easily separates and marks them off.
In canto 94, (verses 4 to 10), Valmiki describes the assembling
of Rama and other men of learning in Rama’s court to hear
the two boys recite the epic of Valmiki. Among the learned
men who gathered on that occasion are mentioned

(Grammarians),

(all the three referring to musicians),

qft^fgcli: (those well-versed in Grammar and
Prosody) and then we find the line —

tfsn i s'l. 7.

When Grammar and Prosody have been mentioned, surely
Poetics is the only subject waiting to be mentioned and who

NAMES OF SANSKRIT POETICS

267

else than one who is learned in Poetics deserves a seat in a
gathering assembled to hear a poem ?

Thus, from Dandin in a way, and from Vatsyayana and
the Ramayana in a clear manner, we come to know that, in its
early stages, the Alahkara S'astra was called KRIYA-KALPA.^

^ The semantics of the word Kriya ” is interesting to study
in this connection. It means among many things ** a literary com-
position ” and Apte’s Dictionary gives here apt quotations from
Kalidasa himself.

I Vik. I, 2.

\ Malavikagnimitra.

Kriya thus means Kavya and Kriya kalpa is Kavya kalpa. It is
remarkable how the English language also has the synonym of
Kriya, “ Work ”, used in the sense of “ a literary composition

(“ Krti ” in South Indian music vocabulary means a music-
composition).

CAMATKARA

At first, works on Poetics approached from the stand-point of
Alankara and were invariably named also Kavyalankara.
Then, with the rise of Rasa and Dhvani, works on Poetics
approached the subject from the ‘ Atman ’ of poetry, namely
Rasa- Dhvani. Then came Bhoja, whose work, the S'rngara
prakas'a, among the many points which it emphasised, em-
phasised the concept of Sahitya also, which together with the
brilliant exposition of that concept in Kuntaka's Vakrokti
Jivita, gave rise to a new kind of aproach fora Poetics-treatise
in the works called Sahitya mimamsa.’ Another approach
is that of Camatkara, the literary delight which comprehends
all the poetical elements from Guna and S'abdalankara to
Rasa and Dhvani. It is clear that when we read poetry, we
have a certain enjoyment ; this enjoyment may be due in one
place to a sound effect, to a striking idea in another, and to
the emotional movement in still another ; but it is all the same
one relish.

It is a striking coincidence that, like the concept of Rasa,
the concept of Camatkara also came into the Alankara S'astra
from the Paka s'astra. Its early semantic history is indistinct
and dictionaries record only the later meanings, the chief of

* One Sahitya mimamsa is the work of Ruyyaka mentioned in
his Alankara sarvasva, but this work has not yet come to light.
MSS. of another Sahitya mimamsa are available in the Tanjore^
Madras and Trivandrum MSS. Libraries ; and this work has also
been edited in a highly defective manner in the TSS. I have dealt
with this work and the concept of Sahitya in a separate chapter in
my thesis on the S'rngara Prak^'a.

CAMATKaRA

269

which are ‘ astonishment ’ and ‘ poetic relish In appears to
me that originally the word Camatkara was an onomatopoeic
word referring to the ^clicking sound we make with our
tongue when we taste something snappy, and in the course of
its semantic enlargements, Camatkara came to mean a sudden
fillip relating to any feeling of a pleasurable type. Nara-
yana, an ancestor of the author of the Sahitya darpana, inter-
preted Camatkara as an expansion of the heart, Citta vistara,
and held all kinds of Rasa-realisation to be of the nature of
this Camatkara or Citta vistara, of which the best example
was the Adbhuta rasa. But as a general and all comprehen-
sive name for literary relish, the word Camatkara occurs even
in the Dhvanyaloka (p. 144, N. S. edn.). In the same sense,
the word occurs about fourteen times in the Locana of Abhi-
navagupta (pp. 37, 63, 65, 69, 72, 79, 113, 137 and 138). From
the reference on p. 63 we understand that Bhatta Nayaka
also used the word in the same sense. On p. 65, Abhinava-
gupta describes Rasa to be of the nature of Camatkara.
Kuntaka uses the word in the same sense. The Agni purana
equates the Caitanya of the Atman, Camatkara and Rasa.
(Ch. 339, S'l. 2).

Abhinavagupta’s pupil Ksemendra, whose brain went
on many a refreshing and original line, made an approach
to poetry through this Camatkara in one of his small but
interesting works, the Kavikanthabharana. The third Sandhi
of this work is called Camatkara kathana and here, Ksemendra
analyses the points of Camatkara in a poem into ten.

^

^JTrT:, I

K. K. A. Ka^yamala Gucchaka IV. p. 129

270

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

But the first regular Poetics-treatise to make the Camat-
kara-approach is the Camatkara candrika of Vis'ves'vara^
protege of Simhabhupala (c. 1330 a.d.)*. This work opens
with the statement that Camatkara is the Sahrdaya’s delight
on reading a poem and that the ‘ Alambanas ’ of this Camat-
kara in a poem are seven, viz., Guna, RTti, Vrtti, Paka, S'ayya,
Alankara and Rasa.

3 ^: 11

India Office MS. No. 3966/

Vis'ves'vara classifies poetry into three classes on the basis of
the nature of the Camatkara. The three classes are Camat-
kari (S'abda citra), Camatkaritara (Artha citra and Gunibhuta
vyangya) and Camatkaritama (V'yangyapradhana).

In a.d. 1729, Hariprasada, son of Mathura misTa Gan-
ges'a, wrote his Kavyaloka (Peterson^s III Report, pp. 356-7)
in seven chapters. He solved the problem of poetry in a
straight and simple manner by taking his stand on Camatkara
which he called the ‘ soul ’ (Atman) of poetry.

Rf^T 11

^ This Vis'ves'vara must be distinguished from the author of
the same name of the Alankara kaustubha who flourished in the
beginning of the 18th cent. The Camatkara candrika is not yet
published, and on the basis of its MS. in the Madras Govt. Oriental
Library, (R. 2679), I published a study of it in the Annals of the
BORI, XVI, i-ii, pp. 131ff.

^ The introductory verses in the India Office MS. of the C. C.
are not found in the Madras MS.

CAMATKiRA

271

It is again on the basis of this Camatkara that Jaganna-
tha gives his most comprehensive definition of poetr)' in his
Rasa gangadhara. Camatkara, he says, is the supermundane,
artistic delight brought about by the contemplation of Beauty,
and poetry is such verbal expression as is the embodiment of
an idea conveying such Beauty.

515?; I =?

II

ADDENDA

I

LAKSANAS

Sagaranandin on Laksana

P. 28. — Sagaranandin, author of the Natakalaksanaratna-
kos'a (edn. M. Dillon, Oxford, 1937) speaks of the Laksanas in
two places in his work, first in lines 1464 — 1729 and then in
lines 1734 — 1852. In the first context, he speaks of these as
Laksanas, gives thirty-six of them and follows the Anustubh
recension. The text enumerating these follows that in the
Kasd edn. of the N. S'., except for a disorder from verse one,
pada four, to end of verse two. On the function and nature of
Laksanas, Sagaranandin gives the simile cf the Cakravarttin
and his Samudrika Laksanas which bespeak his sovereignty,
and adds to it a further comparison of the Laksanas to other
good qualities with whose help a king attains to the state of
an emperor.

When he begins the enumeration Sagaranandin says :

^ a remark which

may give rise to the suspicion that, according to him,
Bharata’s text originally contained only an enumeration and
not definitions also ; the definitions which follow in the
18

274

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

Natakalaksanaratnakos^a are the same as those found in the
Kas'i text of the N. S'. For Prccha and Sarupya, Sagaranandin
notes a second definition with the words ^

It is interesting to note that it is while dealing with the
first Laksana called Bhusana, which is defined as “ being
adorned with plenty of Alankaras and Gunas ”, Sagaranandin
gives his brief treatment of the Alankaras, Svabhavokti,
Upamana etc., and the ten Gunas, S'lesa etc. according to
Dandin.

In the second context referred to above, lines 1734 — 1852,
Sagaranandin takes Bharata’s statement 3

and says that though Upama etc. are the generally accepted
Alankaras, there are still others which are called Natakalan-
karas ; and he gives here 33 Natakalankaras, some of
which pertain to the Upajati-list of Laksanas in Bharata
and the rest are found in the lists of Bhoja and S'arada-
tanaya and in Vis'vanatha’s list of Natakalankaras. The
Natakalaksanaratnakos'a shows that when Vis'vanatha gives
a separate set of 33 items under the name Natakalan-
kara, he is following Sagaranandin or one whom the latter
followed or one who followed the latter. As has been
pointed out above on p. 32, footnote one, Matrgupta is the
earliest writer now known to speak of Natyalankaras, in
addition to Laksanas. The next writer now known to do
so is Sagaranandin.

The lists of Natakalankaras in Sagaranandin and Vis'va*
natha tally, except in two cases : in the place of Ahankara and
Gunanuvada of Sagaranandin, Viswanatha has Utprasana and
U pades'ana.

At the end of the illustration of these 33 Natakalankaras,
Sagaranandin says that these are Alankaras which exclusively
pertain to the Nataka, i.e., the first type of drama, as its own

ADDENDA

275

Alankaras; but a poet may add to the Nataka other Alahkaras
also. What are these other Alahkaras ? They are 57, the 27
Aiigas of the S'ilpaka, the 10 Ahgas of Bhana, the 13 of Vithi,
and the 7 of the Bhanika.

»lTf^^?TT ?1H 1 ^ ^Tn'T^T^T^WTH

Sagaranandin, lines 1852-57.

This places Natakalahkara on a par with Sandhyaiiga, Las-
yahga and Vlthyahga, — several thematic points which go to
form and enrich the composition.

II

SVa\BHAVOKTI

Pp. 101-2. — Regarding Dr. De’s observation quoted here
that it is Svabhavokti when words are used in the ordinary
manner of common parlance, as people without a poetic turn
of mind use them ” —

it must be pointed out that no Alahkarika gives such
a definition of Svabhavokti. See pp. 93, 96, 103, 106,
111-4, where I have emphasised that Svabhavokti is not a
bald or ordinary statement, but that it has also got to be
‘ striking ’.

276

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

III

RITI

A

P. 131-2. — Regarding Bana’s verse on the literary habits
distinguishing writers of the different parts of India, —
etc. —

compare Katyayana’s remark on the subject of provinces
and metres :

quoted by Abhinavagupta in his Abhinavabharatl,
GOS, II, p. 246.

B

P. 147-9. — Regarding Rajas'ekhara’s high praise of the
Vaidarbhi Riti and his mention of Madhurya and Prasada as
its essential Gunas, on which both his Kavyamimamsa and
Balaramayana have been quoted by me —

the following may also be quoted on the same subject
from Rajas'ekhara’s Viddhasalabhahjika —

3# 1^1 flf^: I I 3Tft

SI?IT?: I Act I. p. 40. Jivananda Vidyasagara’s edn.

IV

AUCITYA

P. 208. — Lollata’s verse that Yamaka, Anuloma etc., are
undesirable, II, quoted here —

ADDENDA

277

this is quoted, with mention of Lollata’s name, also b-y
Jayamahgalacarya, in his Kavis'iksa. See Peterson’s I Report,
App. I, p. 79. The text is corrupt as printed there.

V

NAMES OF SKT. POETICS

A

P. 260, lines 16-19 — On Alankaras containing a suggested
’C^lement and the evolution therefrom of the concept of Dhvani
mentioned here —

see my Bhoja’s S'rhgara Prakas'a, Vol. I, pt. 1, pp. 145-7.

B

Pp. 261-3. — On .Alahkara and Beauty dealt with here —
see also above, chapter on Use and Abuse of Alahkara,
pp. 50-51 and 90.

INDEX

WORKS AND AUTHORS
Sanskrit

PAGE PAGE

AGNIPURANA 108-9,

151 fn. 173-181, 251-2, 269
Acyutaraya 38

Anargharagliava 5, 34,

^118,191

A n argh aragh avavyakhyff
(of Rucipati) 5, 34

Anyapades'as^ataka

— of Nilakantha diksita 82
— of Bhallata 82-3

Appayya dlksita 14, 29,

50, 66, 69, 76, 262
AhhijTiana s'akuniala 5,

20, 32 fn. 33, 64, 72
A b h ij licin a s' akuiitala
vyakhya (of Raghava
bhatta) 5, 13, 32 fn. 33-4
Abhinava, Abhinavagupta
2-6, 12-25, 39, 44-6, 50,
52-4, 58, 66, 73, 80, 119,
186-7, 204, 227-30, 239,

241, 245, 247, 249,

253-4, 261-3, 269, 276
Abhinava bharatl {Ndtya-
s'astra vyakhya) 2-6,
12-25, 33, 44, 66, 119,

239, 241,247, 249,253-4,276

Amarus'ataka 10, 20

Amrtanandayogin 153 fn.
Arkasuri 153 fn.

Alaka 5, 35

Alankdrakaustubha 270 fn.
Alankdras'ekhara 151

Alankarasahgraha 153 fn.
Alaiikdrasarvasva 123,

126-130, 268 fn.
Alahkdrasarvasvavyakhyd
— of Jayaratha 128

— of Samudrabandha 130fn.
Avantisundari 226

As'mahavams'a 136

As'vaghosa 87

Am Kavi. See Valmiki
Ananda, Anandavardhana
19, 50-2, 54, 57, 59-62,
64-5, 73, 80,86, 90, 146,
184-5, 187, 204, 207,

209, 213-25, 227-8, 237-
9, 241-3,245-8, 256,261,

269

Aparajiti (Lollata) 207.

_ See Lollata

Aryastavardja 72 fn.

280

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

PAGE

Udbhata 4, 43 fn. 101, 106,

122* 126, 179 fn. 183-4,

186,^259

Upadhyaya. See Bhatta
Tauta

A UCITYA VICARACARCA

54-6, 81, 197, 215, 245-9

Kanada 66

KarpuramaTijari 148, 152,

154 fn.

KarpTiramanjarlvyakhya
(of Vasudeva) 148 fn.

Kalha^ia 83 fn.

Kavikanthahharana 239,

245, 269

Kavikarnika 245

Kavis'iksa 227 fn. 246 fn. 277
Katyayana (on prosody)

249, 276

Kadamharl 191, 220

Kamasutras 264

Kamasutravydkhya^ Jaya-
mangald 265

Kalidasa 49, 63, 65, 70, 76,

82, 85,87-8, 134 fn. 162, 170
Kdvyakautuka 4, 5, 12

Kavyakautukaviva r a na
(of Abhinavagupta) 5

Kavyaprakds'a 107 fn.

108 fn. 110, 115, 125-7
146-7, 187-8, 220, 244
Kdvyaprakds'avydkhyd
— of Bhatta Gopala

107 fn. 108 fn. 127
— of Ma^ikyacandra

115, 130 fn. 188
— of Vidy a cakr a var tti n

110, 126-8

Kdvyamimamsd 131 fn.
147-8 150, 179, 207,

226-7, 276

page

Kavyddars’a 25, 71, 77-8,

81, 94, 103, 105 fn.

138, 141-3, 156, 159,

171, 202-4, 264-5

Kuvyadars’avydkhyd

— anon 103 fn.

— Hrdayamgama 103-4, 266
— of Jivananda Vidya-
sagar 105 fn*

— of Tarunavacaspati 25,

103, 266

Kdvydnus'asana (of Vag-
bbata) 152 fn.

Kdvydnus'dsana, satyd-
khyd (of Hemacandra)

92^ 104, 108 fn. 113 fn.

114, 130 fn. 188, 208,

220-1

Kcivydlciiikdra (of Bha-
maha) 17, 49, 95-6, 98,

100, 102, 117, 135-7,

201-3, 259, 264
Kdvydlahkdra (of Rud-
rata) 58, 105, 191-3,

210-11,213

Kdvydlankdrasdrasan-

graha ]06, 122, 183

K dvy dlahk dr as a rasa h -
graha vydkhyd

—of Tilaka 106, 128, 183
— of Pratiharenduraja

123-5, 183-4

Kdvydlahkdrasutras with
Vrtti 37, 66, 107, 143-4,

158, 167 fn. 266

Kdvydlankdrasutravrtti
vydkhyd -kdmadheuu (of

Tippa) 153, 266

Kdvydloka 270

Kuntaka 93 fn. 101-2,
110-1, 113-4, 116, 131,
134, 139, 161-3, 171,

216 fn. 219, 228, 234,

INDEX

281

PAGE

235-42, 245, 256, 259-61,

266, 268-9

K u mara samhhava 49,

70 fn. 85

Kumarasvamin 93 fn. 260
Kumbhakarna 5, 36

K aval ay an and a 14, 29

Kes'ava 151

Ksemendra 54-6, 81, 197,
213, 215, 227, 235, 239,
241, 245-51, 253, 256, 269

GANGAVATARANA 171
Ganges'a mis'ra (Mathura) 270
* Gitagovinda 36

Gltagovi n davyakhya-
Rasikapriya (of Kuni-
bhakarna) 36

(IJhatta) Gopala 107 fn.

108 fn. 127

CARDRALOKA 6, 14, 28,

38, 42-3, 130 fn.
Can dral o k a li k hy a (of
Vaidyanatha payaguiida) 29
C a m a t k a r a c a ndrikd

153 fn. 270
CiiranilniUnisd 66, 76, 262

Jagaddhara 5, 6, 32, 34

Jagannathapandita 188, 271
Jagannatha (of Tanjore) 72 fn.
Jayadeva 6, 28

Jayaratha 128

Jayamahgald. See under
Kamasutras and Bhatti-
kavya

Jayamahgalacarya 111 fn.

246 fn. 277
Jivananda Vidyasagar 105 fn.

TANTRA VARTTIKA 173
Tarunavacaspati 25, 103, 266

PAGE

(Gopendra) Tippabhupala

153 fn. 266
Tilaka 106, 128, 179 fn. 183
Tilakamanjarl 92, 149

(Bhatta) Tauta 3-5, 11-12,
21-i 39-40, 42-3, 48 fn. 92

Dandin 25, 43, 71, 77, 80-1,

86, 94, 96, 99, 102-3,

105 fn. 124, 138-149

151, 153 fn. 156, 159,

161, 171, 173, 177, 179,

192, 202-4, 206, 211,

245, 249,260, 264-7
Das'arTipaka 4, 5, 14, 25,

30, 44.

Das’arupakavydkhyd
— Avaloka of Dhanika

5, 26, 35

— of Bahurupamis^ra 5,

35-6, no, 151 fn. 179
Durvasas 72 fn.

Dhananjaya. See Das'arTi-
paka

Dhanapala 92, 149

Dhanika 5, 26, 35

Dhannabinduv y a k h y d

55 fn. 200 fn.

Dhvanydloka 19-20, 50-2.

55, 57, 60-2, 64-5, 80,

86, 90, 146, 185, 204,

214-25, 261, 269
Dhvanydloka vydkh y d-
Locana (of A b h i nava
gupta) 20, 24, 50, 52-4,

58, 80, 186, 204, 227-30

239, 261-3, 269

Namisadhu 51, 95 fn.
105-6, 192, 206, 208,

210-2

Nalacaritandtaka 149

282

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

PAGE

N alavilasanaiaka 70 fn.
Navasahasaiikacarita 162 fn.
Natakacandrika 5

N atakalaksanaratnakos'a

273-5

N a tya S' astra 2-4, 27,
39-44, 118, 119, 134 fn.

177 fn. 194-97,211, 218,
222, 247, 251, 253 fn. 273-4
N dtyas'astravyakhyd
— of Abhinavagupta. See
Ahhiiiavahhdraii
— of Udbhata 4

— of Lollata 4, 206

— of S'ankuka 4

(Bhatta) Nayaka 4, 12,

*17, 124, 127, 256,

261, 269

(Bhatta) Narayaiia 74

Narayaija 269

Nilakanthadiksita 48, 50,

“ 54, si 137, 149, 172
(Bhatta) Nrsimha 161

N aisadlilyacarita 71, 73
82, 87, 130 fn. 132 fn. 149

Patanjali 150

Padmagupta 162 fn.

Prakas'avarsa 252-3

Prataparudrlyayas'ohhu-
Sana 76, 93 fn. 153 fn. 191
Pratdparudnyayas'obhu-
sanavyakhya-Ratnd-
pana (of Kumarasvamin)

93 fn. 261

Pratiharenduraja 106,

123-5, 127, 183-4
Prdndbharana 76

Bahurupa mis'ka 5,35, 110,

151 fn. 179

Bana 49, 57 fn. 72, 78, 79,

84, 93,96,103,105,172,

PAGE

112, 131-3, 144 fn. 150,

170, 191, 220, 276
Bdlaranidyana 148, 276
BrhatkaihdmaTtjarl 227 fn.
Brhaddevata 231 fn.

Bhatti 43, 96-8, 117, 120-1
Bhattikcivya 96-9, 117-8,

120-1

BhatHkavyavyakhya

— Javamangald 97-100,
i04, 116, 118-9, 120-1
— of Mallinatha 97 fn. 99 fn.
Bharata 1, 6, 14, 18-20,

26, 29-30, 32, 34-5,

37-40, 42-5, 47, 131,
133-4, 145, 173, 177,
194-9, 206, 213, 217-8,
221-2, 236, 249-51,

253, 256, 274
Bhartrmitra 173

Bhartrhari 231

Bhallata 82-3

Bhallatas' a t a k a. See
Anydpades’as'ataka
Bhavabhuti 84-6, 162, 170,

205 fn.

Bhdgavata 265

Bhagavatavydkh y a (of
S^ridhara) 265

Bhamaha 17-8, 43, 49,
94-103, 117-121, 126,

132fn. 134-5, 139,151fn.

162, 183-4, 192, 200-3,

228, 245, 259, 264, 266
Bharat ama%j an 222 fn.
Bharavi 88

BhdvaprakdS'a 27, 119,

171, 175 fn.

Bhoja 3, 5, 14, 26-8, 31-4,

39, 42, 45-7, 53, 61 fn.

92, 101, 103, 106-110,

112, 139, 146, 151-2,

INDEX

283-

page

PAGE

175, 178-81, 189-9},

193, 199, 200, 203-4,212,
219, 230-4, 259-61,268, 274
Bhoja Canipu 57, 76

Mangala 3

Manjira 170

Mammata 43 fn. 108 fn.
110, il5, 125-8,146-8,

187-8, 220, 244
Mallinatha 97 fn. 99 fn.
MahavJracarita 86

Mahimabhatta 89-90,

. .111-5, 132 fn. 157-9,

167, 242-5, 256
Magha 81, 88, 198-200,

255

Manikvacandra 3, 114,

130 fn. 188

Matrgupta 5, 32 fn.

33, 170, 274
Mayuraja 170

MalatiDiadhava 5, 34,

84-5, 205 fn.

Malatimddhavavyakhyd
(of Jagaddhara) 5, 6, 32, 34
Mai avikdg ni m itra 1 3 4f n.

267 fn.

Mudraraksasa 56, 63, 82

Municandracarya55 fn. 200 fn.
Murari 118, 191

MuhapaTicas'atl 12 fn.

Meghaduta 9, 65, 85

Yas'ovarman 204-6, 209, 223

Rasarnavasudhakara 3,

29, 104-5, 152-3 fn. 175-6
Rasarnavdlahkdra 252
Raghavabhatta 5, 13, 32fn.

33-4

Rdjata7‘angint 83

Rajas'ekhara 131, 147-51,
152, 154 fn. 170, 179,

206-7, 226-7. 276
Rajendrakarnapura 76

Ramacandra 70 fn.

Rdmabhyudaya 204-6, 209
Ramayana 57, 62, 67-8,

70, 71, 73-4, 75, 78-9,

81, 86-8, 111 fn. 118,

J69, 266-7

Rdmdyana campu. See
Bhoja campu
Rdvanavadha. See Bhatti-
kdvya

Ritivrttilaksana 153 fn.
Rucipati 5, 34

Rudrata 43 fn. 58-9, 95 fn.
105-6, 112, 125fn. 151fn.
153 fn. 191-3, 206, 208-

13, 223-4, 232, 259-60
Rudrabhatta 224-5

Ruyyaka “ 116, 123, 126,

127-30, 259

Rupag'osvamin {Ndtaka-
candrika) 5

LALITAVISTARA 265

Lalitdsfavaratna 72 fn.

Loilata4, 206-8, 210,219,276-7

Raghuvams'a 70, 72, 77,

79, 85, 87-8
Ratnakara 5, 34-5

Ralnes'vara 105, 107-8,

112 fn. 132 fn. 189, 232-3
Rasakalikd 230 fn.

Rasagangadhara 188, 271

VA KROK TIJ I VI TA 80,

93 fn. 110-11, 113-4, 116,

122 fn. 13-1 fn. 162-7
168 fn. 169-71, 235-42,

260, 26 8

Vdkyapadlya 23 1

Vagbhata (older) 152 fn.

284

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

PAGE

Vagbhata (younger) 152 fn.
Vagbhatalahkara 152-3 fn.
Vaghhatalaiikaravrtti (of
Simhadevagani) 153-4 fn.
Vacaspatya 265

Vajapyayana 94 fn.

Vatsyayana 264, 266-7

Vamana37, 66, 107, 108 fn.
143-4, 153 fn. 157-8,

167 fn. 205 fn. 245,256,

25_9, 261, 266
Vamana Bhatta Bana 69
VaJmiki 57,‘71, 81, 86-7

111 fn. 118, 169, 266
Vasavadatta 78

Vasudeva 148 fn.

Vikatanitamba 212

Vikramorvas’lya 63 y 267 fn.
Vitthala diksita 153 fn.

Viddhasdlabhanjikd 276
Vidyacakravarttin 110, 126-8
Vidyanatha 93 fn. 153 fn.

191

Vis'akhadatta 82

Vis'vanatha 14, 30-3, 36,

42, 46-7, 110, 126, 259, 274
Vis'ves'vara {Camatkdra
candrikd) 153 fn. 270
VisVes'vara {Alankdra-
kanstubha) 270 fn.

Vis'indharmottara 97, 174

V enisamhdra 74

Vedantades'ika 77

V emabhupdlacarita 69
Vaidyanatha payagunda 29
V yaktiviveka 75, 89-90,

111-16, 158, 167-8, 242-5

S'ankuka 4, 209

S abdakalpadruma 265

S'aradatanaya 5, 15, 27-8,
31-2,35-6, 42, 45-7, 119,

171, 175 fn. 274

PAGE

S'irigabhupala 5, 14, 29,

30, 33-4, 104, 147, 152-

3 fn. 175, 178, 270
SivaUlarnava 50, 54, 137
Sis'upalavadha 81, 199,

220, 255

S'ilabhattarika 150

S' rngdratilaka 224

S' rngaraprakds'a 5, 26,

*53, 60 fn. 107, 109, 110,
173, 175, 178-9, 200,
204-5, 230-1, 233-4, 260,

262, 268

S riigdrasdra 147

S'ridhara 265

S'ripada 151-2

SViharsa (poet) 71-2, 77,
82,‘87, 130 fn. 132 fn. 149

SASG'ITARAJA 5, 36-7

Sabhdranj anas' at aka 48
Samudrabandha 130 fn.

Sarasvailkanthahharana
56, 60 fn‘'l03, 105*-9,
110, 112, 132 fn. 152,
161, 173, 175 fn. 189,
190, 203, 212, 230, 232-4
Sarasvatikanthabharana
vyakhyZi

— of Bhatta Nrsimha 161
— of Ratnes'vara 105,
107-8, 112 fn. 189, 232

Sarvasena 170

Sarves'vara 5, 37, 200 fn.
Sahrdaydnand'X 75, 78

Sagaranandin 273-5

Sdhityakaumudl 153 fn.

Sahityadarpana 3, 5, 30-3,

46-7, 259, 269
Sdhityamifndmsa

— of Kuyyaka 259, 268 fn.
— anon. edn. TSS 37-8,

110, 151 fn. 268 fn.

INDEX 285

PAGE

Sahityasara

— of Acyutaraya 38-9

— of Sarves'\'ara 5, 37,

200 fn.

Simhadevagani 153 fn.

Subandhu {Vasavadatta) 78
Siibhasitanlvi 77

Suvrttatilaka 245-6

Hamsa mitthu 154 fn.

Hainsavildsa 154 fn.

Haravijaya 5, 34

PAGE

Haravijayavydkhyd

(of Alaka) 5, 35

Hari (Prakrt poet) 192

Hariprasada 270

Harivijaya 170, 220

Harsacarita 49, 57 fn.

78-9, 84, 93, 131, 220
Hrdayadarpana 4, 12, 17

Hemacandra 3, 92, 104,

108 fn. 113 fn. 114, 130,
188, 190, 206-8,

220-1

English

PAGE

Abercrombie 225, 225 fn.
Acharya, P. K. 265

Aristotle 139-41, 153-4

160, 255 fn. 258
Authorship and Style 157

PAGE

Dickens, Charles 68

ESS A Y ON CRITICISM

237 fn.

Essentials of Criticism 48fn.

Bain 48 fn. 50 fn. 77

Bhattacharya, Sivaprasad

141 fn.

Bhoja's S' ruga ra Prakds'a
43 fn. 54, 61 fn. 108 fn.

138 fn. 139 fn. 144 fn.
178, 181, 203 fn. 233 fn.

259 fn. 260 fn. 268 fn.

269 fn. 277
Bridges, Robert 255

Brown, J. S. 62 fn. 68

CREATIVE UNITY 48 fn.

De, S. K. 98 fn. 99, 101, 122,

139 fn. 140, 165 fn. 173, 275
Demetrius 140-3, 154,

160-1, 163

Hunt, Leigh

49

Kane, P. V.

99

Keats

89

Keith, A. B.

77, 84

Kuppuswami

Sastri, S.,

Mm.

2 fn. 256-7

Lamborn

48 fn.

Longinus

26S

Murry, M.

155-6

ON STYLE 140-3, 154,

160-1, 163
On the Sublime 263

Pater, W.

59, 61, 157, 166

286

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

PAGE

Personality 48 fn.

Pickxvick Papers 68

Picture of Dorian Gray

92 fn.

Poetic Diction (Bridges)

255

Poetic Diction (Quayle) 88
Poetry As Representative
Art 48 fn. 58 fn.

Pope 237 fn.

Problem of Style 155

Quayle, Thomas 88

Raghavan, V. 43 fn. 78,

108 fn. 109, 110, 131 fn.

138, 144 fn. 147 fn. 174,
.176, 178, 194 fn. 203 fn.

207 fn. 216 fn. 233 fn.

248 fn. 249 fn. 253 fn.

255 fn. 259 fn. 268 fn.

269 fn. 270 fn. 277
Raleigh 166

Rhetoric and Composition

48 fn. 50 fn.

Ramasvami Sastri, K. S.

179

Raymond 48 fn. 58

Sankaran, a. 101

PAGE

Sanskrit Poetics ( D e )

98 fn. 99, 101, 122 fn.

138 fn. 140, 165 fn.
Schopenhauer 157-160

Seven Arts and Seven Con-

fusions

212

Shakespeare

174

Sleep and Beauty

89

Some Principles of Liter-

ary Criticism

161

Spingarn, J. E.

212

Stevenson, R. L.
Style (Plater)

156-7

59

Style (Raleigh)

166

Subrahmanya Ayyar, K.A.

62 fn. 68 fn. 74 fn.

Tagore, Rabindranath

48 fn. 91

Tatacharya, D.T.101-2,135 fn.
Tccluiical Elements of

Style

156-7

Theories of Rasa and

Dhvani

101

Tolstoy

60 fn. 263

WHAT IS ART ?

60 fn. 263

Wilde, Oscar

92 fn.

Winchester

161, 163

World of Imagery

62 fn. 68

SUBJECT

Sanskrit

PAGE

Aksaradambara 144 fn. 145 ;

favoured by Gaudas 131-4
Agnipurana : its Alank, sec-
tion a loose heap 173, in-
debted to several writers
and chiefly to Bhoja 173,
179-181 ; analysis of its
Alahk. chs. 173-4

Anukarana (imitation, repre-
sentation) : drama defined
as 194 ; converts Dosas
into Gunas 211

Anuprasa :

As a Riti -defining feature
179-181, 146-7, 151 fn. ;
as S'abdamadhurya 180

Aucitya of 210 ; must not
be in long series 238 ;
patterns to change often
238-9 ; permitted in des-
criptive portions 86-7 ;
rules for its use 86-7 :

‘ UlbaQa ’ type not
desirable 159 ;

Causes S' a i t h i 1 y a dosa
141 ; favoured by Gaudas
142 ; only mild type
favoured by Vaidarbhas
142, 180 ;

PAGE

In Dandin 189

— S'rutyanuprasa 141, 156,

180 ; and Stevenson’s
‘ contents of phrase ’ 156

— Sthananuprasa 180

Varieties of it called Vrtti
( Vrttyanupr a s a) 183;

3 kinds in Bhamaha

183 ; 5 in Rudrata 192 ;

8 in Hari 192-3; 12
proposed and refuted

by Bhoja 193

U panagar ika (V r 1 1 y a -
miprasa) 184; also
called Masrna and
Lalita 186; equated
with Vaidarbhi riti 187;
suggests Madhurya 187
and goes with Kais'iki
vrtti 186 and SVngara
rasa 186

GrEniya (Vrttyanuprasa)
183-4; also called Ko-
mala 184 and equated
with Pancali riti 187

Chekanuprasa 183, 187
Parusa (Vrttyanu p r a s a)

184 ; also called Dipta
186; equated with Gaudi

288

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKARA S'ASTRA

PAGE

PAGE

riti 187 ; suggests Ojas
187 ; and goes with
Arabhati vrtti 186 and
V i r a , R a u d r a and

Bibhatsa Rasas

186

Latanuprasa

183

Vrttyanuprasa not different

from Guna and

Vrtti

(Kais'iki etc.)

189

See also S'abda

\'rttis

under Vrtti

Anubhava (vivid experience) :
created by Jati or Sva-
bhavokti 106

Anubhava. Rui and Vrtti as
Anu. born of B u d d h i
174-5 ; Anu. of Manas
(Sattvikabhinaya) 175 ; of
Vak (Vacikabhinaya)_ 175,

178 ; of S'arira (Ahgi-
kabhinaya) 174

Anumana versus Dhvani 250,

256

Anusandhana, Anus a n d h i
(continuity) 220, 227 ;

essence of response 220

Anekasandhanakavyas 77-8

Anaucitya

Cause of Abhasa 253; cause
of Hasya 196, 253-4;
general name of all Dosas
243 ; Gramya a kind of
213; as a Vakyartha-
dosa 200 fn ; greatest
Rasadosa 254 ; greatest
Dosa 196, 200 ; greatest
defeat of Rasa 221, 244,

251; greatest offence 252;
in a story to be avoided
by changes in the story
219, 234;

of Pravrtti 202; of Riti 201;
of Vrtti 224-5; of metre

244 ; of acts, port, dress
and speech 213

Anyapades'a 67, 82-3 ; artifi-
cial specimens of 82-3

Apas'abda : literary Apa-
s'abda different from the
grammatical 159 ; real
Apas'abda is Nirasa (void
of Rasa) 243

Abhidhanakos'a 264-5

Abhidhavyapara (poet’s ex-
pression as a whole)

16_, 17, 21,23: and Bhatta
Nay aka 17. See also ■

. under Vyapara
Abhinaya : is Anubhava 175 ;
Ahgika-abhi., S'ariraram-
bhanubhava and Arabhati-
vrtti 175-6; Vacika-abhi.,
vagarambhanubhava and
Bharatlvrtti 175-8; Sattvi-
kabhi., "Mana-arambhanu-
bhava and Sattvati vrtti 176

Abhyasa (practice) 170

Artha in poetry 236

Artha matraka (bare idea)

131-3

Arthalahkaradambara 159

Alahkara 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10 ff
And Dhvani : analysis of
some Alahk. gave rise
to Dhvani 260 ; when
Alahk. are suggested 52

And Rasa : as Antarahga
of Rasa, not Bahirahga
51; Aucitya of Rasa
controls Alahk. 209 ;
exists to suit Rasa 209 ;
flow out of Rasa 89 ;
outer garment of Rasa
214 ; subordinate and
serviceable to Rasa 214 ;
suggestion of Rasa

INDEX

289

PAGE

object of 57 : means of
conveying RasA 57-61 ;
Rasa as Alarikara 58

And Riti 141 ; as compre-
hended in a considera-
tion of Riti 163 ; Vicitra-
marga {till of 169

And Laksa^as : developing
from Laksa^as and hav-
ing the same name as
some Laksanas 8-11,
40-3 ; Laksaijas multi-
ply Alahk. 10, 11

A.nd Vakrokti ; analysis of
Alahk. gave rise to Vak-
rokti 260 ; Alahk. as
Vakrokti 95-6 ; see
under \^akrokti also.

As all conprehensive 261

As beautiful expression 260

As beauty (Carutva, Saun-
darya) 50, 51, 261

As coming under Bharati
Vrtti 177

As constituting the beauti-
ful form in poetry 50

As constituting the striking-
ness of poetic expression 50

As the embodiment of the
poet’s idea 90

As expression itself with a
turn (Bhahgi Bhaniti) 51

As the inevitable incarna-
tion of idea 51

As the several ways of ex-
pressing ideas 90

As the striking disposition
ot words and ideas 50-1

Aucity of : 10, 16, 54, 55,

210, 228, 237-9 ; aucitya
a criticism of over-
emphasis of 250; Aucitya
of Rasa controls 209

19

PAGE

Classified into 3 main kinds
66, by Bhoja 53 ; into
four classes by Rudrata

95 fn. 105

Compared to Alahkaras of
woman, Bhava, Hava
etc. 51-2; toAlahkarain
Music 52 fn. ; to saffron
smeared on body 52 ; in-
sufficiency of comparison
to Kataka etc. 52-3 ;
compared to three in-
creasingly intimate kinds
of ladies’ toilet 53

Number of: Numberless
50 ; as many as possible
modes of attractive ex-
pression 51 ; only three
in Bharata 40

In Bhatti : 96-8; difference
on it between the Jaya-
mahgala and Mallina-
tha’s gloss 97 fn. 98 fn. 99 fn.
Its purpose ; clearer or more
effective expression 58-
9 ; to heighten or lower
an idea 167 ; to heighten
effect 89 ; its purposive-
ness as inevitable as
that of poetry 91

Definition of 58

Discriminate use of 55, 60, 64

Every thing Alahk. to Dandin
and Bhoja 25, 139, 260
Everything else subserving 260
Exaggeration of its impor-
tance 54

Increasing manifestation of
it natural when emotion
swells 61-2

Intimate Alahk. 52-3

Its domination in Skt.
Poetics 259-60

290

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

PAGE

PAGE

Objective differentia of
poetic expression 50

Omnipresent in poetry 50

Organic, necessary, struc-
tural, irremovable and
otherwise : 52, 59, 60,

61, 89, 207, 215
Proper place and function
of 55, 59, 60, 64

Result of the poetic acti-
vity called Varnana 8

Rules for the proper use of
61, 64, 209,

214-5

Should not be an over-
growth 214

Should not be emphasised
in drama 217

Should not necessitate
special effort 89, 215, 238
Skt. Poetics named after

51, 258-261, 264, 268
Thematic points in drama
as _ 275

Those in the Ramayana
discussed 67, 70-1, 73-4,

78-9, 81

Those in Rudrata’s Vas-
tava set 105

Use and abuse of 48-91, 197
Use of particular Alahk.

discussed 56-7, 64-88

Atis'ayokti 11, 23, 40, 41, 73,

77, 96, 97 fn.

Atyukti 73, 143 ; loved by

Gaudas 143

Anyapades'a 42

Anyokti, see Anyapades'a.
Aprastutapras'amsa 23, 82

Arthapatti 41

As'is 43, 101

Utpreksa 76-7, 96, 131-2;
appropriate 77 ; inappro-

priate 76-7 ; endless in
Baija 79, favourite of
Daksinatyas 131-4

— Hetutpreksa 57

Udatta 42

Upama 10, 21, 23, 24, 34,

40, 56-7, 58-9,

66-73, 81

— Appayya on 66 ; Abhi-
nava on 66 ; Varnana
on 66 ; and philosophical
teachings 66-67; its great-
ness 66-7 ; its purpose to
convey idea better 58,

67 ; the basis of numerous
other figures, 66 ; two
kinds, emotional and
intellectual 67

Ullekha 41

Aupamya. See Upama.

Dipaka 10, 40

Drstanta 41

Nidars'ana 41

Parii^ama ; develops from
Riipaka 75 ; its defect 75

Paryayokta 65, 76

Pratisedha 43

Pras'amsopama 11, 40

Preyas 42, 76

Bhava 125 fn.

Bhavika. See separately.
Bhavikacchavi 130 fn.

Bhrantiman 76

Mithyadhj^avasaya 43

Yathasarikhya 75, 96; can-
not be spontaneous 75 ;
rejected by Kuntaka 75

Yukti 43

Rasavad 76 ; and Bhavika

128-130

Rupaka 10, 40, 41, 43, 61,

65, 67, 73, 81 ; and eco-
nomy of language 67 ;

INDEX

291

PAGE

PAGE

and emotion 67
in »

Les'a
Vis'esana
Vyatireka
Vyajastuti
S'lesa: 21,

fla>vs
» 73-5, 81

41, 95, 99, 100
41
41
41

34, 41, 61, 65,
77-80, 131-3 ; charming
instances of 78-80 ; effec-
tive in gnomic poetry
and Catus 79 ; favourite
of Udicyas 131-3 ; helps
all Alahkaras, except
•. • Svabhavokti 78-80; its
daws 27 ; overdoing of
7 9-80; S'abdabhahga
variety of 79-80

— S4istopama 34

Samasokti 80-81 ; over-done
81; S'astraic variety
of 82

Samuccaya 42

Sams'aya 4 1

Suksma 95, 99, 100

Hetu 41, 43, 95, 99, 100

— Arthalahkaradambara 159

Alaiikaras'astra: Explanation
of the name 51, 258-62 :
its other names 258-67 :
called Kriyakalpa 264- 7 ;
included in \^acikabhi-
naya or Bharati vrtti 177

Rasa, Dhvani and Aucit-
ya its 3 great contri-
butions 225

Graphic presentation of its
schools 256

Alankara- vadins 260

Alankara-age of Skt. Poetics

208-9, 260

Alankaras in Music 52 fn.

Alankaras of damsels, Bha-
va, Hava etc 174 ; Alan-

kara in poetry compara-
ble to 51-2

‘ Atman ’ (soul, essence of
poetry) ; Camatkara as
270 ; Rasa-dhvani as
268 ; Beauty-realisation
as 263

Abhasa : caused by Anaucitya
230. See also Rasabhasa.
As'ukavi 83

As'rayas'rayibhava (in laksa-
Qas) 6, 8

Aharya (Dress, make-up) 196.

_ See also Pravrtti.
Aharyas'obha (artificial
beauty) 162, 166-7

Epacara : and D a n d i n ’ s
Samadhi 180, 181 ; as a
Riti-defining feature

147, 179-181

Upades'a, teaching as an aim
of poetry 82

Rsi and Ravi 92

Aucitya 10, 19, 20, 24, 55-6,

60, 122, 194-257 (histor^^ of)
And Agni puraija 251-2 ;
Abhinavagupta 227-30 ;
Avantisu n d a r i 2 2 6;
Anandavardhana 213-
25 ; Kuntaka 234-42 ;
Ksemendra 2 4 5-5 1;
Daiidin 202-4 ; Nami-
sadhu 208-13 ; Prakas'-
varsa 252-3 ; Bharata
194-8 ;Bhamaha 200-2 ;
Bhoja 199-200, 230-4;
Mahima 242-5 ; Magha
198-200; Municandra
50 fn. 200 fn. ; Yas'ovar-
man 204-6 ; Rajas'e-
khara 226-7 ; Rudrata
208-13 ; Lollata 206-8 ;
Sarves'vara 200 fn.

292

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

PAGE

And Dhvani 216, 237-42;
cannot be separated from
Dhvani 227, 229-30 ;

intelligible only through
Dhvani 245, 247 ; Dhva-
ni its proof and touch-
stone 219, 230, 247:
sequel to Dhvani doc-
trine 227-8, 250

And Rasa : arose out of Rasa-
doctrine 227-8 ; cannot
be separated from Rasa
227, 229-30 ; greatest

secret of and relation to
Rasa 221, 225, 246; in-
telligible only thro’ Rasa
229, 245, 247; life of
Rasa 246, 253 ; most
essential to Rasa 214 ;
presupposes Rasa 229,
242-3 ; mutual aucitya
among Rasas 223 ; of
Rasa with ref, to Patra
(character) 205-6

And Laksana 10, 19, 20 ;
Aksarasahghata laksaija
taken as Pada-aucitya 20
And Vakrata (Vakrokti) 216,
237-42 ; identified with
Vakrata 241-2 ; lest of
Vakrata 241

As an absolute principle of
criticism 229 ; as all im-
portant 55 fn. 200 fn. ;
as essence of artistic ex-
pression 197 ; as life ’
of poetry 54, 198, 213,
235, 245-6, 253 ; as ‘life’
of Rasa 246, 253 ; as
mutual help between
parts 252 ; as the ulti-
mate beauty in Kavya

54, 257

PAGE

As an Ubhayalankara 251 ;
as a S's^dalankara 252 ;
as a Sadharana guna 235

As Adaptation 197-9, ioi-4,
211-3, 217, 226, 232,
254-5; as Agreement 208 ,
as Harmony 198, 204,
206, 208, 213, 216, 219,
255, 257 ; as Keeping
255; as Proportion 198,
204, 206, 208, 219; as
Propriety 197, 198 el.
seq. ; as Relativity 196,
203, 255 ; as Sympathy 20S

Of Alahkara 10, 19, 20, 54-
56, 228, 238. (See also
under Alahkara.)

Of Anuprasa 237. (See also
jjnder Anuprasa.)

Of Aharya (dress) 194, 196,
213: of Upasarga 240,

248 : of Karaka222, 248;
of Kala 248 : of Kriya
222, 248; of Gati (verse,
prose etc.) 233-4; of
Gupas 10, 19, 199 (See
also under Gunas) ; of
Jati (languages) 233 ; of
Tattva 248 ; of Des'a
248; of Nipata 248; of
Pada 20, 222-3, 231-2,
247-8 ; of Patra 205-6 ;
of Prakarana 219 ; of
Prakrti 222, 248; of
Pratibha 236, 249; of
Pratyaya 239 ; of Pra-
bandha 218; of Bhavas
221, 228 ; of Yamaka
237, 239; of Rasa 156
(See Aucitya and Rasa
and also separately under
Rasa) ; of Riti 223. (See
also under Riti) : of

INDEX

293

Page

Linga 222, 240, 248 ; of
Loka vrtta (Svlibhava)

241, 249*; of Vakta 217;
of Vacana 222, 248 ; of
Varna 199-200, 215-237;
of Vacya (expression)
205,217; of Visaya 145,

217, of Visaya-*Riti 145,
of Visaya-Vrtti (Anu-
prasa) 145 ; of Vrtta
(metre) 244, 249; of Vrtti
223-5, 236-7; of Vrata
248 ; of S'abdalankaras
•207-8, 209-10, 237 ; of
Sattva 248 ; of Sarasari-
graha 248 ; of Svabhava

248-9

i t i c i s m of o v e r - e m -
phasis on Alankara and
Guna 250 ; determines
Gunatva and Dosatva
201-4, 211-3, 226,*232,
254-5 ; doctrine deriv-
able from Bharata 197-8,

211, 221; explains secret
of poetic appeal 198 ;
first use of the word 205,
208-9 ; greatest guna
244 ; in drama and other
types of composition
217; in grammar a sense-
determining condition
231; looms larger than
Rasa 229 ; makes in-
telligible every means of
expression 225 ; must
heighten power of ex-
pression 236 ; a relation
229 ; subserved by all
other rules 255-6 ; three
stages in the emergence of
the name 209 ; two kinds,
external and internal 244

Kalah (Catussasti)

PAGE

264

Kavi and Rsi

92

Kavivakya a: Patravakya

74

Kavivyapara. See Abhidha-

vyapara and Vyapara
Kavis'iksa

69

Kavyabh ipraya

10, 13

Kavya : beautiful mode of
expression its distinctive
feature 17; difference
from S'astra and Purana
17 ; word and idea sub-
ordinate to mode of ex-
pression in 17. See also
below Poetry.

Kavyakriya 264-5

Kavyapurusa (personified) 147
Kavyalaksana 264, 266

Kavyas'arira 6, 8^9-11, 16-17, 19
Kuntaka : and Ananda and
Abhinava 236-41 ; full
development of Bhama-
ha in 139 ; his originality 131
Krti (musical composition)

267 fn.

Kriya (poetic composition) 267
Kriyakalpa, a name of Alahk.

S^astra 264-7

Klistakalpana _ 71

Ksemendra : and Ananda and
Abhinava 245-8; and*
Bharata 251 ; his origi-
nality 245, 269

Gati (gait — on stage) and
character and Rasa 86

(literary form, prose, verse
etc.) and Aucitya 233

As Riti 172

Gadya : compounds said to
be the life of 88 ; con-
sidered test of a poet’s
powers 88 ; deterioration
in latter-day writings 88

294

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

PAGE

Guna 3, 6, 8-10, 19-20, 178, 256
Additional gunas (in Bha-
maha) 138, (in Kuntaka)

168

Analysis of the nature of
141-3, of Daijdin’s 138-
9, 178-9, of Vamana’s 179
Anitya or Vais'esika, rela-
tive, not absolute 201-4,

211-13, 226
Come under Bharat! vrtti 177
Comprehends Alaiik. and
Rasa 163, 178-9, whole
range of poetry 141-3
Considered Alahkara by
Dandin 139

Difference from Laksana 6
History of 178, 203 fn.

In Bhamaha 138

Strange notion (of Acyu-
taraya) of 38

Two classes : first classifi-
cation into S'abda g. and
Artha g. 143 ; two sets :

3 Rasa gunas and 10
Bandha guijas S'lesa
etc. 8, 9

Viparyayas of 138-9, 141
And Aucitya : 199, 200, 215-7

Aucitya-rule a criticism of 250
Aucitya the greatest guna

200

See also under Aucitya.

And Rasa : 3 Rasa g. 9 ;

inherent in Rasa as its
dharma 6, 8,9,182,200,215
And Riti 135-168, 182, 192
And Vrtti 182

And Sanghatana 138, as
Sanghatana-dharmas

142, 146

Asadharaija gunas (style -de-
fining) 235, and Sadha-

PAGE

ratia gunas (of poetry
in genel^al) 235 ; Sauku-
marya and Ojas the
Asadharana gunas of
Vaidarbhi and Gaud! 161
Vais'esika gunas : See under
Guija and Dosa as
Anitya or Vais'esika ;
see also under Aucitya.
Agramyata (as Madhurya) 179
Arthavyakti 107-8, 123, 157 ;

and Schopenhauer 157
Abhijatya (of the Suku-
mara marga) 168

Udara 142 ; and Dhvani
142 ; its 2 varieties 142
Ojas: 9, 138, 144, 145,

152 fn. 154, 181, 199,
200,_217; and Dirgha-
samasa-sanghatana 138;
and Demetrius 161 ;
Guna of Raudra rasa
182 ; suggested by Paru-
sa Vrtti 187 ; Vamana’s
self-contradiction on 144
fn. ; Ojas of Artha as
Praudhi 205 fn.

Kanti 104, 149, 41; of

Dandin 142 ; of Vamana 143
Kornalatva 138

Prasada 9, 120, 123, 128 fn.

138, 148, 152 fn. 199, 200
And Asamasasanghatana 138
And Schopenhauer 157-8;

and Stevenson 157-8

Guija of Sukumaramarga 168
Secured by avoiding com-
pounds 167-8, by avoid-
ing superfluous words
158, by using well-
known words 168

Praudhi 1 89-90, 1 93, 205 fn. ;
Ojas of Artha as 205 fn.

INDEX

295

PAGE

PAGE

Bbavika (of Sabda) - 232

Madhurya 8, 9, 1?0, 138,

144, 146, 148, 152 fn.
215,217: asAgramyata
179: as Uktivaicitrya
143, 167 ; as the primary
guna of Sukumara Marga
167 ; as uncompounded
words 167 ; guna of
S'rhgara 182 ; produced
by S'rutyanuprasa 141 ;
suggested by Upana-
garika Vrtti 187

Lav'^anya (of the Sukamara
Marga) ^ 68

SVutipes^alatva 138

S'lesa 8, 9, 141-2; as Gha-
tana I'l^

Samata 141; and Steven-
son 137

Samadhi 143 ; and Aupa-
carikapra yoga 180-1;
and Samasokti Alahk.

80-1, 143

Saukumarya 159, 189, 193 ;

and Demetrius 161

Saubhagya 235

Guijatva : not absolute, but
relative 196, 255

Gumpha (poetic composition)

171

Camatkara 239, 246, 247-8
268-71 ; Agnipuraija on
269 ; all-comprehensive
268-9 ; and A d b h u t a
Rasa 269 : and Dhvani,
Vakrata_ and Aucitya
248 ; as Atman of Kavya
270 ; as supermundane

delight _ 271

Equated with Atman and
Rasa 269

First regular approach from 270

In Dhvanyaloka, Locana
and Hrdayadarpana 269

Jagannatha on 271

Orign onomotopoeic 269

,, in Paka S'astra 268

Sernanbcs of 268-9 : sever-
al ‘ Alambanas ' of 269-70

Ten kinds of 269

Carutva. See Saundarya.
Chandas 1, 3, 264, 265

Jati (Arthalahkara). See
Svabhavokti.

(Sabdalarikara) as ap-
propriate use of different
languages 233

Jatyams'aka (music) 195

‘ Jivita ’ (life, essence of poet-
ry) : applied to Aucitya
54, 198, 213-235, 245-6,

253 ; applied to Rasadh-
vani 245-6 : applied to
Vakrokti 235, 245

Tattvajnana 66

Tatparya versus Dhvani 250, 256

Dapdin : and Bhoja 139, 260

Dars'ana (poetic insight, per-
ception) 48, 49, 92

Dosas 95, 111, 254-5

As Anitya or Vais'esika (re-
lative) 201-4, 211-13,
226, 232 ; Anaucitya
general name of 243 :
Anaucitya greatest
dosa 196

Become Gunas 210-4,
211-13, 254; x^partha
as gupa 202 ; Upama-
dosas (A d h i k a and
Nyuna) as gunas 213 ;
Gramya as guna 211-
213 ; Punarukta as guija
202-3 ; Vyartha as guna
202-3 ; S'rutidusta as

296

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

PAGE

guQa 204 ; Sasams'aya
as g. 203

Defined as hindrance to
Rasa 243 ; five major
kinds of ( V i d h e y a-
vimars'a, Prakrama-
bheda, Kramabheda,
Paunaruktya and Va-
cyavacana) 244-5 ; in-
congruity with Rasa
g r e a t e s t Dosa 196 ;
Mahimabhatta greatest
exponent of 244

Of Upama (Nyuna and
Adhika) 213, 232,254;
of Artha 213 ; of Rasa
209, 213, 223-5 ; of

Vakyartha 200 fn. 232
Atyukti 159: Apada
231-2 : Apas'abda 153,
243; Apusta 112 fn.

116 fn. 132 fn ; Aprayo-
jakapadas 157, compar-
ed to Stevenson’s caville
157; Aritimat 201;
Avakara 157, 159 : Ava-
cyavacana 111, 112,

158 ; G r am y a 211 ;
Niralankara 112 fn. 116
fn. ; Nirasa 224 ; Nirasa
as void of Rasa 243 ;
Ney^tha 157 ; Patra-
dusta 225 : Padapurana
158 ; Prahelika p r a y a
159 ; Loka viruddha
202 ; Lokagamavirodha
248; Vacyavacana 111,
158; Vi rasa 232;
Virudha 232 ; Vyut-
panna 159 ; S'aithilya
141, 156, Srutidusta

204, guiia in Raudra
154, 254, and Demetrius 154

PAGE

Irrelevant introduc t i o n s
220 ; on-emphasis of
the essential 220 : over-
development of the non-
essential or the part 220

Dosatva not absolute but
relative 196, 255

Dhvani 153 fn. 214, 228-30,

245, 250, 268
And Alafikaras : origin in
the analysis of some
Alank. 260 ; and Udara
guna (Dandin) 142 ; and
Aucitya and Varkrata .
237-42, 247-8; and

Aucitya 216, 219, 230,
245, 247-8, 250 ; touch-
stone of Aucitya 219,
230; and Riti 153 fn.
All means of Dhvani wel-
come 222

Critics of 256 ; versus Anu-
mana, Bhavana — Bhoga
and Tatparya 250, 256
Only artistic process of
Rasa-realisation 214

Of Karaka, Tin, Sup etc,
222, 241, 247^8; _of

Pada 247, 223 of (At-
mane and Parasmai)
Padas 222 ; of Prabandha
218, 221 ; of Varga 215 ;
of Sanghatana 216 ;
sound-effect 2 2 2, of

voice 222

Rasadhvani 213, 229. See
also under Rasa.

Dhruvas (songs) 249

Natakalankara. See Natya-
lankara

Natya; Anukara of the
world 131

Natyadharmi 194

INDEX

297

PAGE

Natyalarikara, a name .of
Laksana : 5, 33'5,

43 ; Matrgupta the first
to speak of 30*33, 31 fn.
a separate set in Bahu-
riipa 35-6 ; a separate
set but mostly identical
with Upajati-list laksa-
nas in Vis'vanatha 30-3
and Sagaranandin 374-5

N is's'reyasa 66

Pataka (in drama) 207, 219
Pada : vocabulary to suit
*. * character 231-2 : see
also Aucitya of Pada
and Dhvani of Pada.
Padadhvani 223, 247

Panthah (Riti) 17_:

Parispanda (activity of the
poet) 8 ; three stages
of 8

Pallava (flourish of expres-
sion) 132 fn : essence of
poetry at its best
132 J bane of poetry at
its worst 132 fn.

Paka (maturity of poetic
culture and expression)
38-9, 144 : as the secur-
ing of gunas clearly and
in full 144

Pathyagunas 195

Patra (character) : Kasa-
development appropriate
_ to_^ _ 205-6

Patravakya x Kavivakya 74

Prakaraijavakrata 219

Frakari (in drama) 207, 219
Prakrti (Nature, character) :
194-6 ; infinite variety of
195 ; involves Aucitya
221 ; and Bhavaucitya
221 ; its anaucitya 202-3,

PAGE

211, 223 ; See also S'ila,
SvabhSva.

Pratibha (Imagination, poetic
genius) : 8, 49, 63, 69,

112, 115, 124, 167 ; and
Bhavika 124, 127 ; like
Siva’s 3rd eye or Yogic
vision 115 I reality called
forth by 118 » writing
inspired by 111

Pratyaksa, Savikalpaka and
Nirvikalpaka 115

Prabandha guna 117-130,
199, 200, 233 : Praban-
dha dosahana 219, 234 ;
Pra. d h a r m a 9 ; Pra.
dhvani 218, 221 ; Pra.
ahga 26 ) Pra. alahkara 204
Prayoga (presentation of

drama)_ 119 fn.

Pravrtti (Aharya, Dress,
Make-up) 131, 134,

_ _ 174-7, 194

As Aharyabhinaya or Vesa-
vinyasa 174 ; as Bud-
dhyarambhan u b h a v a

175-7

And Riti 131

— Daksinatya Pravrtti and
its gracefulness 133-4

Bandha (poetic composition)

17, 25 fn. 143. See also
Gumpha and Sahghatana.
Bandhas (Duskaras, S'abda-*
citra) 88 ; least to do
with poetry 88 ; Cakra-
bandha condemned 207

Bana • on provincial literary
manners 131-3; his
view of the best style 133

Bhaniti (poetic expression) 17

Bhallata : his poignant ex-
perience S3

298

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'iSTRA

PAGE

Bhana

275

Bhanika

275

Bhamaha •

and Kuntaka

139 ; has no fancy for
Ritis 151 fn ; on the
requisites of good poetry

134-5

Bhavana (versus Dhvani)

124-127

Bhavanavyapara 124, 127

Bhavika 108, 116, 117-130:
Udbhataon 122-3, 125-6:
Dat;idin on 121-3 : Prati-
harenduraja’s s i g n i fi-
cant exposition of 123-5 ;
Bhatti and Jayamahgala
on 120-1 : Bhamaha on
117-9, 120, 126: Ruy-
yaka on 127-130

And Bhavita, 12th Lasy-
ahga 118-9 ; and Imagi-
nation 124 ; and poet and
Sah^daya 124, 127 : and
Rasa-realisation 123-4,

127, 130 fn. : and Rasa-
vad and Svabhavokti

Alahkaras 128-130

As a Prabandhaguna 177-122
As a Vakyalahkara 122-130
A live concept in pre-
Bhamaha days 122

A necessity in poetry 118

Its difference from some
Alahkaras 128 ; two
kinds of 126-7

Bhusana, a name of Laksa^a

5, 6, 27, 29
Bhoga (versus Dhvani) 250, 256
Bhoja : and Daijdin 260 :
full d e V e 1 o pment of
Dandin in 139

Mahakavya : every part of it
to be Rasavat 206-8

PAGE

Mahimabhat}.a : and Ananda

243^’ and Mammata 244
Marga : 12 Marga^ of

Vacikabhinaya, Alapa
etc. 177

As Riti 172,177

Mimamsa s'astra 12

Yamaka (s^abdalahkara) 80,

142, 237, 239

Aucitya re. 210 ; condemn-
ed 159, 207, 214, 220 :
discriminate use of 210 ;
in Dandin 179 : permis-
sible in Rasabhasa 88,
in descriptions 87 ; rules
for its employment 86-7 :
to be avoided in Rasa,
S'rhgara (Vipralambha)
and Karuna 86

Yogavrtti as a Riti-defining
feature 147-8, 151, 179-81
Ramaniya, Ramaijiyaka. See
Saundarya.

Rasa 6-8, 38, 48-91, 123-130,
143, 145, 153 fn. 154, 174,
175, 185, 190-1, 193,

194-257

Accepted by KuntakV 236,

245, by Ksemendra 245,
by Mahima 242

Bhoja’s theory of 173

Came from Pakas'astra 268

Clear presentation of 123

Concentation of the poet
on 56, 63

Controls mode of expression 1 45
Dispensed with by some
aucityavadins 229

Everything flows from 196

Everything to be appro-
priate to 196, 214-5,
dress appropriate to 194,
fancies 195, music 195,

INDEX

299

PAGE

speaking 195, verbal
qualities 195, IViti 201,
vrtti 191

Ground of reference to esti-
mate everything else in
poetry 54, 196, 198, et seq.
Helped by appropriate
sounds 184, 186, 188,

201, 215, 216

Hindered by Yamaka or
Anuprasa 86-7

Natural discription of 92

Not even a word to be de-
* void of 243

Root of every thi 2 ’ig 196

Soul of poetry 6,54, 196,227,256
Transparence of 133

Vastu-Alahkara the gar-
ment of 214

Word devoid of it the real
Apas'abda 243

And Alankara 50-88,206-8,
209-11,214-5,228. See
also under Alankara.

And Aucitya ; aucitya its
greatest secret 251 ; au-
citya to it the real test
196 ; aucitya to it deter-
mines Guijatva 196 ;
makes Aucitya intelligi-
ble 245, 247

And Anaucitya : anaucitya
greatest enemy of 251 ;
anaucitya to it deter-
mines Dosatva 196

Aucitya of 10, 19, 44 fn.
194-257. See also under
Alankara, Riti and Au-
citya.

And Gati on the stage 86

And Guna 6, 8 ; the Gunas
of 145, 199 ; Guna, Dhar-
ma of 215

PAGE

AndDhvani ; realised through
Dhvani 213-4, 229, 230
And Bhavika 123-130

And Ragas 250

And Riti ; assignment of
Rasas to Ritis 153-4 fn. ;
in the definition of Riti
143, 145, 153 fn. 163 ;

Riti appropriate to 201
And Vrtti 145; Vrttyangas;

7 ; S'abdavrttis 184, 186
And sound-effect 86

And Raleigh and Pater 166
Adbhuta 62, 199 ; and Ca-
matkara 269 ; and Dipti 199
Karuna 73, 80, 86, 215,

225 ; should not be over-
developed 223 ; S'abda-
citra inappropriate in 80-86
Bibhatsa85, 184, 186, 201,250
Raudra 182, 186, 199,217,
225, 254 ; and Dipti

199, 215; and Gaudi riti
201 ; harsh sounds sug-
gestive of 200, 204, 215-
6 ; and Ojas 217 ; sounds
appropriate to 154 ; and
Sragdhara metre 250

Laulya, proposed as a
Rasa by some 253

Vira 186, 199; and Dipti
199 ; and Gaudi riti 201 ;
and Sragdhara metre

245-250

S'rngara 8, 64, 80, 86, 182,
186, 215, 254 ; and Kai-
s'iki vrtti 145, 182 ; and
Vaidarbhi riti 145, 154
fn. 201; and Babda vrttis
184 186 ; must not be
overdeveloped 223

— Vipralambha-SY n g a r a
65, 66, 80, 214-5, 225 ;

300

SOME CPNCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

PAGE

and Madhurya 217 ; Ya-
maka improper in 214-

220

— irsya-Vipralambha 61

— S'rngarabhasa 253

Hasva 186 ; and Anaucitya
253-4 ; in Skt. Lit. 253
fn. Laulya an accessory
of 253 ; produced by
Anukrti and Abhasa 253-4
Rasa-dosas : 209, 223-5 ; Vi-
rasa of 2 kinds 223-4 ;
Nirasa 224 ; excess of
Rasa 223-4 ; mix-up of
contradictory Rasas 223-4
Rasa-prayoga 194-5, 198

Rasabhasa 230, 253. See
also under Anaucitya.
Rasaviyoga, securing eternal
presence of Rasa 234

Rasokti 92, 103 ; style pre-
ferring it to Vakrokti 162
Rasikas 172

Ragas and Rasas 250

Rajas'ekhara: source of Bhoja
on Ritis 179

Ramayana : Alarikaras in
Ram. discussed 62, 67,

68, 70, 7_1, 73-5, 78-9, 81
Rudrata : and Ananda 209-

10, 223-4

Riti 38, 131-181, 256

Agnipuranaon 151 fn.
173-81 ; Kuntaka on
139-140, 162-171 ; Kun-
taka its greatest expon-
ent 163 ; Dandin on 138-
143, 154-61 : Bana on
131-3; Bhamaha on
134-8, 141 ; Bhoja on
152 ; his indebtedness on
Ritis to Rajas'ekhara
178-181 ; Mammata on

PAGE

146-7, 187-8; Rajas'e-
kharpf on 147-51,
179-81 ; Rudrata on
144-5, 153 fn. 180,
191-2; V am ana on
143-4, 157-158; S'iriga-
bhupala on 147, 152-3
fn. Minor writers on 152-4fn.
And Dhvani as part of its
definition 153 fn.

And Pravrtti 131

And Gunas : at its lower
level in S^abdagunas 143,
at its higher level in
Artha gunas 143 ; as its
constituents 167 ; the
gunas comprehending
A lank ar a and Rasa

163, 178-9

And Rasas 145, 153 fn.

154 fn. ; Rasas as part of
its definition 143, 153 fn.
And provincial literary
manners 131-7 ; dissoci-
ation from geographical
divisions 144, 163-4

And ‘ style ’ 140-172 ; does
correspond to the western
concept of style 140-172;
Thematic treatment of
style in Western Lit. 153-5
As Anubhava 146, 174-8 ;
as Buddhyarambhanu-
bhava 174-8

As the characteristic way .

of a writer 172

As characterised by an
attitude to every aspect
of expression 163

As comprehending Alan-
kara, Rasa and the
whole field of expression
140, 163, 167, 169, 178-9

INDEX

301

PAGE

As expression appropriable
to Rasa 190

As infinite and not strictly
classifiable 169-172:
one poet’s Riti subtly
different from another’s
171 ; two final types
1 39-40, 161-2 ; six in

Bhoja 190

As the soul of poetry 143

As \"acikabhinaya 176

As S^abdasahghatana 146

Anaucitya of 201

.Aucitya of 154, 201

Criticism of the old views
on 164

Defined bvAnuprasa 146-7,

151 fn., 179-181 : identi-
fied with Anuprasa Jatis,
l^panagarika etc. 147 ;
defined by guijas 138-
168 ; defined by Samasa
H7, 151, 153 fn. 178-
181, 191-2 ; defined by
other features 147, 151
fn. Yogavrlti 147-8,

151, 179-181 ; Upacara
in its definition 147,
179-181 ; the relation of
these new defining fea-
tures to the old ones,
gunas 180-1

Distinction of a poet due to
his distinct Riti 172

Higher and lower concep-
tions of 139

Origins of 131-3; pre-Bha-
maha, pre-Dandin his-
tory of *’131-3, 192

Related to character of poet
(in Skt. Lit) 131, 140,

160, 163-171
Related to theme 145, 1 53-5

PAGE

Synonyms of : 147-153 fn.;
Gati, Nadai, Panthah,
Prasthana, Marga, VaZi

172, 177

S'ingabhupala’s new names
for 147, 153 fn.

Two main types ; one pre-
ferring S V a b hava and
Rasa uktis and showing
S'akti 162, another pre-
fering V a k r o k ti and
showing Vyutpatti 162

Andhra (riti) 153 fn.

Avantika (riti) 152, 190

Gaudi (riti) 100, 133-181, 192

And Arabhativrtti 145 ; and
Raudra Rasa 145 ; called
Kathina by S'inga 147,

150 fn. ; equated with
Parusavrtti 188 ; s u i t -
able to Vira, Raudra and
Bibhatsa Rasas 201 ;
stood for vigour 145 ;
contrasted wdth Vaidar-
bhi 153 fn. ; possible good
type of 135-7, 140, 161 ;
good type comparable to
Kuntaka’s Vicitramarga
139, and to the Forcible
or Elevated style 140,

161 ; bad type compar-
able to the Frigid or Af-
fected st^de 161 ; possible
overdoing of its features

135

Paficali (riti) 144, 145, 147,
150, 153 fn. 154 fn.

180-1, 192

Akin to Vaidarbhi 144-5 ;
Vaidarbhi minus Ma-
dhurya and Saukumarya
plus Ojas and Kanti (in
Vamana) 144; called

302

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

PAGE

Mis'ra by S'inga 147 ;
considered neither good
nor bad 147 ; defined as
style with sound and
sense well-balanced 150,
as exemplified by Bana
and S'lla 150

Madhyama (marga or riti) (of
Kuntaka) ; 165, 170;

exemplified by Matp
gupta, Mayuraja and
Manjira 170

Mis'ra ritis, one for each pro-
vince 155 fn.

M a g a d h i (riti) same as
Maithili 148, 151-2,

153 fn. 154 fn, 190 ; and
SVipada, the Buddhist
writer 152 fn.

Maithili (riti) same as Ma-
gadhi 150-2

Latiya (riti) 145, 152, 153 fn.

' 154 fn. 180-1, 192:

akin to Gaudi 145 ;
fourth Riti introduced
by Rudrata 144

Vacchomi (Vatsagulml) name
of Vaidarbhi after the
capital of V i d a r b h as ,
Vatsagulma 148 ; men-
tioned by Rajas'ekhara
148, by Simhadevagapi
in addition to Vaidarbhi
153-4 fn., by Hamsa-
mitthu in addition to
Vaidarbhi 154 fn.

Vicitramarga (riti) 139, 140,

161, 162, 169, 170, 235 ;
becomes Gaudi if it de-
teriorates 163, 165-171 ;
exemplified by Baiia,
Bhavabhuti and Raja-
s'ekhara 170; result of

PAGE

sincerity of artistic per-
fectioi^ outweighing sin-
cerity of emotion 166

Vaidarbhi (riti) 133-162,

180-1, 188, 191
And Kais'iki vrtti 145

And Gunas : Madhurya
supreme in it 145, 148 :
Prasada its character-
istic 148

And Rasa ; S^rhgara its
Rasa 145

Also called Vacchomi
(Vatsagulmi) 148 ; called
Komala byS'ihgal47, 153 fn.
As the best style 143-4,
147-150 ; as name of un-
compounded collocation 191
On its excellence : Dhana-
pala 149, NilakaQtha
diksita 149, Rajas'ekhara
147-9, 276; V am ana
144 ; SViharsa 149

Possible bad type of 135-7 ;
possible overdoing of its
features 135

Sukumara marga 139, 140,

161, 162, 165-171, 235;
compared to the classic
manner 163, to the Vai-
darbhi 139-40, 161;
exemplified by Kalidasa
and Sarvasena 17 0;
result of sincerity o f
emotion 166

Saurastri (riti) 153 fn.

Laksanas 1-47, 177

According to Acyutaraya 38
,, ,, A b h i n ava-

gupta 11, 13, 15-25, 39, 44
According to Alaka 35

„ ,, Kumbhakarija

36-7

INDEX

303

PAGE

According to Jagaddhara. 34

„ ,, Jayad?va 38-9

,, „ Tar u nava-

caspati 25

„ „ Tauta 3, 4-5,

11-12,21-3,39-43
,, ,, Dandin 25

,, ,, Dhananjaya 25

,, ,, Dhanika 26, 33

,, ,, Bahurupa-

mis'ra 35-6
,, ,, Bharata 2, 6,

39-44

. • „ „ Bhoja 26-7

,, ,, MalTgupta 32 fn.

,, ,, Ratnakara 34-5

,, „ Raghava-

bhatta 33-4
,, ,, Rucipati 34

,, ,, V^is'vanatha 30-3

,, ,, Vaidyanatha

payagunda 29
,, ,, S' a r a d ata-

naya 27-8

,, „ S'iiigabhu-

pala 29-30
,, ,, Sarves'vara 37

,, ,, Sahityami-

mamsa 37-8
,, ,, pre-Abhinava

writers 6-13
As Abhidhavyapara 16-18,

21, 23

,, characteristics of differ-
ent types of Kavya 9, 131
,, features of drama 7, 13-

4, 26-8, 30, 33, 35
,, Kavyas'arira 6, 8-1 1, 16,

19, 22-3

,, infinite 18, 24

,, as multiplier and beauti-
6er of Alankaras 10-1

21-5, 40, 42

PAGE

Compared to Samudrika
Laksanas 7, 12, 29, 37
Compared to texture
(Spars'a) 9

Evolution into Alankaras

8-11, 40-3

Inclusion in other concepts,
Alank. or Bhava 5, 14,

25-6, 30, 33, 37, 44
Lists of 45-7 ; literature on
4-6 ; not elaborated in
later lit. 2

Other names of 6, 27,29-36;
(See also Bhusana, Vi-
bhusana, Natyalahkara)
Relation to Alankara 2, 5-6,

8-11, 13-23, 27-43
,, ,, Aucitya 10, 19,

20,24

„ ,, Bhava 5, 14,

25-6, 30, 33, 44
,, ,, Guna 6, 8,

19-20,22, 33 fn.

27-8, 39

,, ,, Sandhyaiigas 7

12-6, 26-7, 44
„ ,, \Vttyangas 7

Ten old views 5, 6-14;
twofold (Alahkara-like
and Bhava-like) 13-4,

44 ; Siddha and Sadhya
7 ; two recensions of

Bharata’s text 3, 5, 18,

26, 28, 31-2, 45-7”

Anustubh recension 3,

4, 34, 39 fn. 45-7. Upa-
jati rec. 3-5, 28, 30, 35,
37-9, 41, 44-7 ; Upajati
laksanas as Naty alan-
karas 31 (See separately
Natyalankara) ; clever
explanation of the two
rec. 18 ; those common

304

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

PAGE

to both rec. 4, 45-7 ;
differences between the
two 3, 4, 30-1 45-7 ; in-
inclusion of those of one
in the other 4, 18 fn. 45-7
Come under Bharati vrtti 177
Lasya 118-9; Lasyarigas 275
Lokadharmi (realism of Bha-
rata’s stage) 131 fn. 194
Lokasvabhava 249. See also
Prakrti, S'ila, Svabhava.
Vaktrokti (Vakrata) 78, 92,

95- 6, 102-3, 1 09 - 1 0,

168-9, 228, 235,256
And Dhvani and Aucitya

237-42, 241-2, 247-8
As the striking, beautiful
compression distinguish-
ing Kavya 17, 43, 92,

95, 96 ; a continuation
of Alahkara 260 ; arose
out of Alahkara 228,

260; dominates in \'icitra
marga 169

Of Sup etc. 241,247-8

Pervasive of the whole
range of poetic expres-
sion 92 ; style preferring
it to Svabhava-ukti or
Rasa-ukti 162

Varnadhvani 154, 215; in
Demetrius 154

Varnana (poetic presentation
and expression) 48, 92 ;
an aspect of poetic acti-
vity 8

Varnavakrata 215, 237

Vastu (idea, story) 244 ; to
be the body of Rasa 218
Vacikabhinaya 1

Vacyavacaka 225

Vartta : Antithesis of Kavya

96- 7, 99, 100; expres-

PAGE

sion in Loka and S'astra
96 ; ’oosely used for
Svabhavokti or Jati 96 ;

J ayamahgala (on Bhatt i)
on 97 ; Dandin on 97,

100, 104-5; Bhatti on
96; Bhamaha on 96

Alahkara in Jayarnahgala
98 ; not Alahkara in
Bhamaha 96-1 00; a
different concept alto-
gether in Dandin 100,
104-5 ; two varieties in

Jayarnahgala 97-8

Vibhusana, a name of Lak-
saria 6, 32 fn.

\hvaksa 231

Vhthyahgas 14, 275

Xmtta (metre) 84 ; aucitya of
249, 250 ; its need in
poetry 84 ; Anustubh
and narration, summing
up and pointed speech
250 ; Sragdhara and
description of war, \'ira,
Raudra and Bibhatsa
Rasas v 250

Vrttis : of Natya (four) 38,
134, 174,’ 178, 182-3;
six in Bhoja 190; the
nature of Vastu or
Itivrtta or ideas 182

And Guna 145, 182;

result of Gunas 184, 186
And Riti 1 82 : compre-
hends Riti 174 ; similar
to Riti 193 ; but more
intimate with Rasa 146
Applied from Natya to
Kavya 145 ; history in
Kavya _ 145, 182-193

As Anubhava 146, Buddh-
yarambhanubhava 174,

INDEX

305

PAGE

175 ;• as Cesta or whole
dramatic actior.^ 174,

176; as expression ap-
propriate to Rasa 146,

185 ; as the disposition
of letters to suit Rasa

184-5, 187-8

Arabhati vrtti 176, 177 ; and
Angikabhinaya 176 ; and
Ojas 182, 191 ; and

Gaudi riti 145, 182,

191 ; and Raudra Rasa
145, 181 ; in Kavya 182

.Madhyamarabhati 190

Kais'iki vrtti 134 ; and Ma-
dhurya guna 183, 191 ;
and Vaidarbhi riti 145,

183, 191 ; its Rasas,

S'rrigara and Karuna
145, 191 ; graceful Abhi-
naya and dress included
in 174, 176

— in Kavya 182

— Madhyama Kais'iki 190

Bharati vrtti 174, 177, 178
As Vacikabhinaya 174-5 ;
as the realm of Ritis
174-5; becomes an
Arthavrtti with changed
meaning in Kavya 187,
190, 193 ; includes the
entire Alarikara S'astra
177; its nature 190-1 ; its
Rasas Hasya, Adbhuta
and S^anta 191 ; whole
S'ravya Kavya its field 182
Sattvati vrtti 176-7 ; changes
meaning in Kavya 190,

193 ; in Kavya 182 ; its
nature 190-1 ; its Rasas
Vira and Bhayanaka 191
— Vrttyangas 7-25 ; and
Laksaijas
20

Page

Vrtti : several concepts of the
name of 183

— as Anuprasa Jatis 183 :

See under Anuprasa
— as S'abdavrtti 183 ; See
separately Sabdavrtti
and Vrttyanuprasa under
Anuprasa

— as Samasa Jatis 183.

See under Samasa
— Two kinds, Artha Vrtti
and S'abda Vrtti 146,

185 ; Artha \'rtti as ideas
suitable to Rasa 185-6,

190 ; S^abda vrtti, See
above

Vaicitrya 216 fn ; another
name of Camatkara or
Vakrokti 247-8

Vaidagdhya 69 ; vagvaidag-
dhya of Agni p. com-
pared to Vakrokti 173
Vyapara (poet’s activity)

8, 12, 17, 20, 266
Vyutpatti 69, 82, 162, 164,

170 ; style showing more
Vyutpatti than S'akti 162
S'akara and Dosas becoming

Gunas in his portrayal 254
Bakti (poetic genius) oO, 162,

164 ; the style owing
more to it than to Vyut-
patti 162

S^ankaravarmaU; King (and

Bhallata) 83

S'abda in poetry 236

S'abda v rtti (Upanagarika
etc.) 146, 183 -190; as Anu-
prasa Jatis 146-7; as
the Riiis 187-8; as
varieties of Variiasang-
hatana 188 ; as the use of
words suitable to Rasa 185-6

7

306

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

PAGE

Sabdartha pravibhsjaka
dharmas 231

S^abdalankaras 84-88, 196,
207-8, 209-10, 214, 237-
9 ; inappropriate when
Rasa IS to be supreme
197 ; in Dandin 142,
179; provision for
S'abdacitra in R a s a -
bhasa 59

For Aunprasa, Bandhas
(Duskara) and Yamaka,
see separately.

S'ilpaka, Uparupaka 275

Sila 195-6, 207. See also Prakrti
Sahgita 259

Sanghatana :

And Gu^as 138

As collocation 192

Aucitya of 199-200, 215-7

Of Varnas (letters) 200;

suitable to Rasa 215

— S^abdasanghatana a s

Riti * 146

Samasa in Sanghtana as
Riti-determinant 13 8;

A samasa Sanghatana as
Vaidarbhi 191 ; varieties
of Samasa as other Ritis

191-2

— Sanghatanadh vani 216

Sandhyahgas 7, 25-7, 44,

207, 221-2, 275; and
Laksanas 7, 12-16, 27,

44 ; suggestiveness to
guide the use of 221

Samasa 138, 144

And Ojas 138, 144, 181 ;
as a Riti-defining feature
147, 151, 153 fn. 154 fn.
179, 181, 191-2; long
varieties to be avoided
in drama 217-8; loved

PAGE

by Gaudas 150 ; ‘ men-
tioned by Aristotle 154 :
not favoured by Vaidar-
bhas 168 ; ruinous to em-
phasis and understanding
167 ; varieties of com-
pounded collocation call-
ed Vrtti 183 ; taken as
the sole Riti-determinant
by Rudrata 191-2 ; un-
compounded is Vaidar-
bhi 191 ; compounded
yields Gaudi, Pancali
and Latiya 192

Sahrdaya 57, 124, 168, 208,
*235, 252, 256; his ex-
perience a circuit start-
ing with the poet and
ending with hiniself 124 ;
his experience an aesthe-
tic re-creation 124

Sadharmya - v a i d h a r m y a-

pariksa 66

Sadharanikarana (universali-
sation) 129-30

Samanyabhinava 52, 119fn.
SamudrikalaksaQas^ 7 ; and
Laksanas 7, 12, 37

Sahitya 235-6, 244, 258-9,
264, 268 ; concept born
of grammar 258 ; ex-
plained 259 ; name of
Skt. Poeties as common
as Alankara 259

Sahitya vidya (personified)

447 ; her nuptials with
Kavya purusa 148

Saundarya (Carutva, Rama-
niyaka — Beauty) 50-1,

90, 261-3; aim of the
poet 90 ; Alankara equ-
ated with 50-1, 261 ;
Alankara or Dhvani

INDEX

307

PAGE

desirable only when there
is 24, 262 ; called pamat-
kara 263, Ramaniya
263, Vakrata, Vicchitti,
Vaicitrya 263 ; of form
necessary in poetry 4<S-50
---In Appayya 262, Jagan-
natha 263, Dhvanyaloka
and Locana261 -3, Bhoja
262, Vamana 50, 261,

V y a k t i vivekavyakhya
51, Western Literature 263
•-—Its Realisation soul of
Kavya 263

— Poetry embodies it thro’
Artha and S'abda 271

Svabhava (Character, N a -

ture) 236, 240, 242, 248
See also Prakrti and S^ila.
Svabhavokti 42, 49, 58, 64,

92-116, 244

Agni purana on 108-9;
Udbhata on 106; Kun-
taka’s rejection of 93 fn,

110, 111, 113
Kumarasvamin on 93 fn.;
Jayamahgala on 97-100;
Dandin on 94, 102, 103 ;
Namisadhu on 95 fn. 105-
6 ; Baija on 92 ; Bhatti

PAGE

on 96-97 ; Bhamaha on
94-6 : Bhoja on 106-110;
Mahiman’s eloquent de-
fence of 1 10- 16 ; Rudrata
on 95 fn. 105 ; Ruyyaka
on 116 ; Vamana on 107-
8; Vidyadhara on 116,
Vidyanatha on 93 fn.

And Arthavyakti guna

107-8, no
„ Bhavika 116, 128-30

,, Vartta 96-9

,, Vastava group of figures
in Rudrata 95 fn. 105

Called also Jati 93, Svaru-
palahkara 109 ; Rjukti 110
Comprehended in Vakrokti
for Bhamaha 95, 103

Divided into 4 by Dandin
94, 103 ; into many by
Rudrata and Bhoja 103,

105

Explained as Guna-ukti by
Bhoja ' 109-110

Should be striking and
vivid 93, 103, 105-6,

115-6, 133 ; style prefer-
ing it to Vakrokti 162

Hasya : See above under

Rasas

English

Actors 195, 196

Adaptation 197-212, 217,

226, 232, 254-5 ;
converts Dosas into
Gunas: 201-12, 217,

226, 232, 254-5
See also above Aucitya.
Aesthetics 263

Agreement 208 See above
Aucitya.

Allegory 67

Anthologies 82

Arts. See above Kalah.
Atmosphere 225, 232

Beauty. See above Saundarya.

308

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

PAGE

Cacophony : to be avoided 239
Caville (Aprayojakapadas)

157

Character (personality,
soul) of poet 1 60,

163-171

„ in the story. See
above Patra,
Prakfti and Sila,
Classical manner : culmi-
nation of art 163

Comedy, Comic : employ-
ment of Nyuaopama and
Adhikopama in 213. See
also above Hasya.
Compounds. See above Samasa
Conceit. See above Ut-
preksa under xAlankaras.
Conductors (of drama) 195
Continuity 220. See also
above Anusandhana.
Court-poetry 76 : its far-
fetchedness 76

Decoration. See above
Alahkara and Aharya.
Descriptions : should be
organic, structural,
necessary and naturally
emergent 207 ; should be
proportionate and har-
monious 219

Digressions (descriptive) 219
Double Entendre. See
above Slesa under Alan-
kara.

Drama 26, 28, 119; as imi-
tation of the three worlds
194, and of states of per-
sonalities 194 ; as repre-
sentation of moods 196 :
Alahkaras not to be em-
phasised in 217 ; gram-

PAGE

matical flourishes to be
avoid/^d in 217; harsh
words to be avoided in
217 ; long compounds to
be avoided in 2 1 7 ; princi-
ples of Aucitya enforced
by its form 217 ; text of 1
Dress. See Make-up as
also above Aharya and
Pravrtti

Effectiveness the test 199
Emotional suggestion 155-6
Episodes (sub-plots) 207,
219. See also above
Pataka and Prakari
Excellence of build 204

Excess: to be avoided: de-
corative 160 ; descrip-
tive 207

Expediency the test 199

Expression : ‘ the empiri-
cal technique ' 255 ; sym-
bol and vehicle of Rasa
2 2 5; appoporiate to
Prakrti 205.^ See also
above Abhidhavyapara.

Figurative Language
49, 58-9 ; adopted when
one describes to another
a scene 58 ; less proper
when character itself
speaks 74 ; natural in
heightened moods 61-2 ;
overdoing of 73

Fine Arts 263

Flaw : not absolute, but re-
lative 196, 199. See also
above under Dosa
Form : essential in poetry
48-50, in art

92

INDEX

309

PAGE

Gender > preference of feme-
nine 80 ; and Dhvani

222, 240

Genius (poetic) 8, 49, 261.

See also above S'akti
Goodness, not absolute,
but relative 195, 199

Grammar 1, 266 ; gramma-
rians 266 ; grammatical
flourishes 218

Harmony 198, 204, 206,

208, 213, 216, 219, 255,

*’ *257. See also above
Aucitya

Hyperbole 142 ; Gaudas*
love of 142. See also
above Atis'ayokti and
Atyukti under Alankara

Imagination. See above
Pratibha

Imitation of art (counter-
feit art) 60

Impressionism 250

Incidents. See story

Jingle 222, 225

Kashmirian Alankarikas 228
Keeping (harmonising of
medium) 255

PAGE

Literary forms (play, epic
etc.) 217

Logicians 115

Make-up-, Dress, 194, 196.

See also above Pravrtti
Maturity (of expression).

See above Paka
Maturity (of poetic power)
defined as securing ex-
pression suited to Rasa

226

Metaphor. See above
Rupaka under Alankara
Mimamsakas 94 fn.

Moderation 168

Moods : Drama the repre-
sentation of 196 ; source
of action etc. 196

Music ; appropriate to
Rasa 195 ; of Dhruvas
249 ; of words 84 ; musi-
cal qualities of Rhythm 155

Nature 194, 196. See also
above Prakrti, S'ila, Sva-
bhava, as also World
Natural Description, See
above Svabhavokti
Natural Beauty 10, 20, 22,
159, 162, 166-7; ren-
dered further attractive 170

Language; Aucitya of
dialects 233 ; exploita-
tion of all the means
afforded by 222-3

Laughter. See Comedy,
Comic as also above
Hasya

Letters : suggestiveness of
237. See also above
Varija

Onomotopoeic effect 84-5
Originality : of Kuntaka
131 ; of Ksemendra 245,
269; lack'of 88-9

Painting 255, 263

Parable 67

Parody 254

Perception. See above
Dars'ana

310

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'ASTRA

PAGE

Poet : compared to Rsi
118. See also above Kavi
Poets : see world as made
in beauty 80 ; those with
learning, but no imagi-
nation 69, 70, 82

— of latter day : artificial-
ity of 88 ; experts in
Yamaka 87, in S'lesa 77

Poet’s attitude 253

Poetic Culture : defined as
the sense of proper and
improper 226. See also
above Vyutpatti
Poetic Experience : a cir-
cuit starting with poet
and ending in reader 124

Poetic Expression. See
above Abhidhavyapara,
Alahkara, Vakrokti
Poetic insight. See above
Dars'ana

Poetics 258-60, 263-7, 268
Poetry : and emotion 48 ;
and expression 49, 50 ;
and form 49, 50 ; and
thought 48 ; as beautiful
idea beautifully express-
ed 89 ; as criticism of
life 82 ; as expression
(Abhidha pradhana) 92 ;
as expression of the
poet’s mind 91, 122 ; as
lila of the poet 91 ; its
enjoyment an aesthetic
recreation 124; its essen-
tial features according
to Bhamaha 134-6*.
must be sensuous 84 ;
neither pure emotion
nor pure thought 89 ;
nor even mere manner
89 not to be judged

PAGE

from utilitarian view-
p o i ij t 91 ; past and
futures made present in
118 i similar to God’s
lila of creation 91 ; a
striking form natural to
it 94 ; teaching as an
aim of 82 ; versus ordi-
nary talk and scientific
expression 94, 96

See also above Kavya
Practice. See above Abh-
yasa

Precision : of expression
with ref. to emotional
suggestion 155-6, 163

Production (of drama) 196
Proportion 198, 204, 206,
208, 219 ; as excellence
of build 204 ; its per-
fection all the morals
in art 198. See also
above Aucitya
Propriety 197, 198 ff. See
also above Aucitya
Prose. See above Gadya
Prosody 1, 3, 266. See
also above Chahdas and
Vrtta

Provinces : and literary
manners 131-4, 150

— Gaudas 131-168. See
also above Gaudi un-
der Riti

— Daksipatyps 150

— Vidarbhades'a 148 ;
Vatsagulma its capi-
tal 148 I headquarters
of poesy 148 ; home
of grace 133-4; Vai-
darbhas 132-168. See
also above Vaidarbhi
under Riti

INDEX

311

PAGE

— Easterners. See G^udas
— Northerners 131-2

— Westerners ' 131-2

Pun. See above S'lesa
under Alahkara

Realism. See above Loka-
dharmi

Relativity : of good and
bad in poetry 196, 203,
255. See Adaptation

Relevancy 204, 206

Representation (Drama
*. as) 196

Restraint 142

Rhetoric not poetry 54

Sanskrit Literary Criti-
cism 194, 255. See

also above Alahkara
S^astra

Sanskrit Poets : their ear
for the music of words 8*1
Satire 254 : Nyunopama
and Adhikopama used
in 213

Sculpture 263

Simile. See above Upama
under Alahkara.

Simplicity in art 157, 160
Sincerity 166 ; two kinds,
emotional and artistic 166

Sound-effect 84-6, 91 ; and
Rasa 86 ; and Riti and
Vrtti 86

Sounds: Pleasing 239;

torturous 239

Speech : and Rasa 196 ;

appropriate on stage 195

Stage 194-6; Idealism and
Conventions and Real-
ism of 195 fn.

Stock Diction 88-9

PAGE

Story : as expression of
Rasa 218 ; appropriate
change of 219, 234 ; inci-
dents of emotional value
alone to be retained
218 : subsidiary themes

219, 220

Style : a higher and lower
conception of 140 : and
oratory 160 ; certain fix-
ed types of 140, 141 ;
does correspond to Skt.

Riti 140-5,153-172

No end to ethical valua-
tions of 160 : objective
140 ; subjective 139 ;
thematically fixed 140,
141; two final styles 139

Affected style

161, 163

Agreeable ,,

160

Attenuate ,,

160

Elegant ,,

140, 154,

160, 161 ;

suited to

S'rhgara

155

Elevated style 154, 160,
161 ; may deteriorate
into Frigid and Af-
fected styles 163 ;
suited for battle de-

scription 154

Forcible style 154, 160-
1 ; may deteriorate
into Frigid and Af-
fected styles 163

Frigid style 139, 160-3 ;

compared to Gaudi 161

Grand style 155; suited
to superhuman and
majestic theme 155

Grave style 160

Medium style 160

Plain style 140, 154,

160, 161

312

SOME CONCEPTS OF ALANKaRA S'aSTRA

PAGE

Subjectivism 249

Sublime 263

Surplusage 158 : to be re-
moved 60 ; see also above
Aprayojakapadas and
Avacyavacana under
Dosas

Sympathy (mutual con-
formity of parts) 208

Teaching : as aim of poetry.

See above Upades'a
Text-reconstruction : Agni-
purana 176 fn. 180 fn.
Bhamaha 98-100, 259;
Locana 186,229; Vyakti-
viveka 113-4

Theme : See story ; and
Riti. See above Riti

Verbal Ornaments : See
above S'abdalahkaras.
Verbal qualities : suited to
different emotional situ-
ations 199-200

Visual suggestion of im-
agery 155-6

PAGE

Western Literary Cri-
Tici™ 153-63, 255 fn.
Western writers : and Skt.
writers —

Bramaha and Schopen-
hauer 159

Bhamaha and Winches-
ter 162

Dandin and Schopen-
hauer 157-9

Dandin and Stevenson 156
Kuntakaand Demetrius 161
Kuntaka and Winches-
ter L62r3

Mahima and Stevenson 157
Vamana and Stevenson 157
Vamana and Schopen-
hauer 158-9

Word : echoing sense 84 ;
their music 84 ; the sug-
gestive, proper or strong
word 223

World : ground of refer-
ence of success of art
195 ; pramana of Natya
195. See also Nature
and above Prajtcrti, S^ila
and Svabhava.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ADYAR LIBRARY

(The Theosophical Society, Adyar, Madras, S. India)

. Rs. A.

1. A Preliminary Rist dp the Samskrt and Prakkt MSS. in

the Adyar Library^ (Saipskrt-Devanagari) 1910 Boards ... 1 8

Cloth ... 2 0

2. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Samskrt MSS. in the Adyar

Library. By F. O. Schrader, Ph.D., Vol. 1, Upanisads 1912.

Cloth ... .5 0

3. The Minor Upanisads (Saipsku) critically edited for the Adyar

Library. By F. O. Schrader, Ph.D., Vol. I. — Sarpnyasa 1912.

Cloth ... 10 0

4. Ahirbudhnya-Sai^hita of the Pancaratra Agama (SaQlsk^t),

Edited under the supervision of F. O. Schrader, Ph.D., 2 Vols.

1916 Cloth ... 10 0

6. Introduction (English) to the Pancaratra and the Ahir-

BUDHNYA Samhita. By F. O. Schrader, Ph.D. 1916. Cloth ... 3 0

6* Yoga Up.anisads — 20 — with the Commentary of Sri Lpanisad
Brahma Yogih. Edited by Papdit A. Mahadeva Sastri, B.A.

1920 ’ ...5 0

7. Samanya Vedanta Upanisads— 24-with the commentary of SVi

Upanisad Brahma Yogin. Edited bv Papdit A. Mahadeva
Sastri. ‘B. A. 1921 ' ’ ...5 0

8. Vais.nava Upanisads — 14 —with the Commentary of Sri Upani-

sad Brahma Yogin. Edited by Papdit A. Mahadeva Sastri, B.A.
i923 ‘ ...4 0

9. S'aiva Upanisads— 15 — with the Commentary of Sri Upanisad

Brahma Yogin. Edited 6y A. Mahadeva Sastri, B.A. 1925 ... 3 0

10. S'akta Upanisads — 8 — with the Commentary of SVi Upanisad

Brahma Yogin. Edited by Pandit A. Mahadeva Sastri, B.A.

1925 *' ... 2 8

11. Catalogue of Samskrt MSS. in the Adyar Library (revised).

Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar Library under the direction
of Prof. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.), 2 Vols. 1926
and 1928 Each ... 3 12

12. Samnyasa Upanisads — 17 — with the Commentary of S ri Upanisad

Brahmayogin. Edited by T. R. Chintamani, M.A., and the
Papdits of the Adyar Library, under the direction of Prof.

C. kunhan Raja, M.A., D, Phil. (Oxon.) 1929 ... ^ 4 0

13. RukminI Kalyai^a Maha Kavya by Rajacfldamapi Diksita.

Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar Library and Mr. T. R.
Chintamani, M.A., under the direction of Prof. C. Kunhan
Raja, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) 1929 ... 2 0

14. Unpublished Minor Upanisads with the Commentary of SVi

Upanisad Brahma Yogin. Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar
Library, under the direction of Prof. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A.,

D. Phil. (Oxon.) 1933 ... 5 0

15. Ten Major Upanisads with the Commentary of SVl Upani§ad

Brahma Yogin, Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar Library
21

Rs. A.

under the direction of Prof. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D. Phil.

(Oxon,)

Is'a to Aitareya Vol. I — 1935 ... 4 8

Chandogya and B^hadarapiyaka Vol. II — 1936 6 0

Vol. I Boards ) o o

Vol. II „ j ^ ^

16. Melaragamalik.\ of Mahavaidyanatha S’ivan. Edited by Papdit

S. Subrahmanya Sastri, F.T.S. 1937 ... 2 0

17. SamgrahacOdamaxi— Edited by Papdit S. Subrahmanya Sastri,

F.T.S. with a critical Introduction in English by T. R. Srini-
v'^asa Aiyangar, B.A., L.T. 1938 ... 5 0

18. Pratyabhijnahrdayam (The Secret of Recognition) with English

Translation and Notes by Dr. K. F. Leidecker, M.A., Ph.D. .

Text edited by the Staff of the Adyar Library under the direction
of Dr. G. Srinivasa Murti, B.A., B.L., M.B.&C.M., Vaidyaratna,

Hon. Director, Adyar Library. 1938 ... J 0

19. Bhavasai^kranti-SDtra and Nagarjuna’s Bhavasamkranti

S'astra — with the Commentary of Maitreyinatha - with English
Translation by Papdit N. Aiyaswanii Sastri, Tirupati. 1938 2 1

20. Yoga Upanisads. Translated into English by T. R. Srinivasa

Aiyangar, B.A., L.T., and Papdit S. Subrahmanya Sastri,

F.T.S. 1938 ’ ...50

21. * Where Theosophy and Science Meet (in four Parts) by a

body of experts— Edited by Professor D. D. Kanga, M.A..
l.E.S. (Retd.)

Part 1. Nature — From Macrocosm to Microcosm ... 1 H

Part 2. Man — From Atom to Man ... 1 14

Part 3. God — From Humanity to Divinity ... 2 4

Part 4. Some Practical Applications 1938 ... 2 4

22. Rgvedavyakhya, Madhavakrta — E dited by Dr. C. Kunhan

Raja, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) 1939 ' ...6 0

23. The Number of Rasas. By V. Raghavan. M.A., Ph. D., Depart-

ment of Sanskrit, University of Madras, with a Foreword by
Prof. M. Hiriyanna, M.A., formerly Professor of Saipsk^t
Maharajah’s College, Mysore, 1940 ... 3 0

24. Sam ANYA Vedanta Upanisads — Translated into English by

T. R. Srinivasa Aiyangar, B.A., L.T., and Papdit S. Subrah-
manya Sastri, F.T.S., 1941 ... 5 0

25. BhagavadgItarthaprakas'ika of Upanisad Brahmayogin (Saips-

k^t). Edited by the Papdits of the Adyar Library with an Introduc-
tion by Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.), 1941 4 0

26. SiMAVEDA-SAMHiTA— With the Commentaries of Madhava and

Bharatasvamin. Edited 6y? Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A. D. Phil.

(Oxon.), 1941 ... 6 0

27. Raja Dharma (Dewan Bahadur K. Krishnaswami Rao Lectures,

1938, University of Madras) by Rao Bahadur K. V. Rangaswami
Aiyangar, M.A., 1941 ... 3 s

28. Varivasyarahasyam of BhSsurSinandanatha (2nd Edition) by
Papdit S. Subrahmanya Sastri, F.T.S. (with English Transla-
tion), 1941

* Published under the auspices of the Adyar Library Association,

2 8

Rs. A.

29. VYAVAHARANlRTiiAYA OF Varadaraja— Edited by, Rao Bahadur

K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar, M.A., and A. N. Krishna
Aiyangar, M.A., L.T. Adyar Library, 1941

30. Si^GiTARATNAKARA — With the Commentaries of Catura Kalli-

fl&tha and Siiphabhupala. Edited by Papdit S. Subrahmanya
Sastri, F.T.S., Vol. I? 1941

3L Catalogue of th^Adyar Library, Western Section part 1—
prepared under tne direction of Bhikshu Arya Asanga, Jt.
Director and Curator, Western Section, Adyar Library, 1942. 5 0

32. Alambanapari'ksa and Vrtti by Dihnaga with English transla-

tion, Tibetan text etc. by Papdit N. Aiyaswami Sastri, Tirupati,

1942 * _ ... 3 8

33. Some Concepts of Alai^kara S'astra by Dr. V. Raghavan, 4 o

M..A., Ph. D., University of Madras, 1942

PAMPHLETS

A Variant Version of the Ekagnikanpa (Reprinted from the
Adyar Library Bulletin, October, 1939). Edited by K. Madhava
Krishna Sarma, M.O.L.

,^The Rajamrganka of Bhoja (Reprinted from the Adyar Library
Bulletin, October, 1940). Edited by K. Madhava Krishna
Sarma, M.O.L.

The Sat Pancas'ika, a Silpas'astra manual. (Reprinted from the
Adyar Library Bulletin, February 1942). Edited K. Madhava
Krishna Sarma, M.O.L.

The Prama-namanjari of Sarvadeva (Reprinted from the Adyar
Library Bulletin, May, 1942). Edited by K. Madhava Krishna
Sarma, M.O.L

0 3

0 4

0 5
0 6

IN THE PRESS

1. As'VALAYANAGRHyA-SOxRA— With Devasvami Bh^ya— Edited by Swami

Ravi Tirtha.

2. Asvalayanagrhya-SDtka (Bhasya of Devasvami). Translated into Eng-

lish 63? A. N. Krishna Aiyangar, M.A., L.T., Adyar Library.

3. JiVANANDANAM OF Anandarayamakhi with a Commentary by Vaidya-

ratna Papdit M. Duraiswami Aiyangar. Edited by Vaidyaratna
G. Srinivasa Murti, B.A., B.L., M. B. & C. M. and Vaidyaratna
Papdit M. Duraiswami Aiyangar.

4. S'rI Pancaratra Raksa of Sri Vedanta Des'ika — Edited by Vaidya-

ratna Papdit M. Duraiswami Aiyangar and Vedanta S'iromapi
T. Venugopalacharya.

5. Vaisnava Upan ISADS — Translated into English by T. R. Srinivasa Aiyangar

B. A., L.T.

6. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Adyar Library by

K. Madhava Krishna Sarma, M.O.L., under the direction of Prof.

C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) — Vedic.

7. UsAi^iiRUDDHO of Rama Papivada, Edited by Papdit S. Subrahmanya

Sastri, F.T.S. and Dr. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D, Phil. (Oxon.).

8. NyayakusumaFijali of Udayanacarya — Translated into English by Swami

Ravi Tirtha.

9. The Apastambasmrti— Edited by A. N. Krishna Aiyangar, M.A., L.T.,

Adyar Library.

10. The Acyutarayabhyudayam of Rajanatha pipdima — Sargas 7 to 12 —
by A. N. Krishna Aiyangar, M.A., L.T., Adyar Library.

n. Ve^aOTA Par JBHA fA— with English translation and Notes by Prof
S, SnryAnarayana Sastri^ M, A., B. Sc (Oxon.), Reader, Head of the
Departm^^t of Philosophy* ^^iversity of Madras,

12 CatuRBaS'alaksa^I of JGaoXohara with Five Commentaries — Edited
by Pap4it N. Santanam Aiyar

Agents for our publications :

THE THEOSOPHICAL PUBLISHING HOUSE
Adyar, Madras, S. India

WORKS UNDER PREPARATION

t. Gautmasm^TI — Edited by A N Krishna Aiyangar, M A , L T ,
Adyar Library.

2 The Kaladars'a of Aditya BhaxT a— E dited by Rao Bahadur K V

Rangaswami Aiyangar, M A , and A N. Krishna Ai^^an gar, M A , L T ,
Adyar Library

3 The Vis^:?usmrti — W ith the Kes'ava Vaijavanti of Nanda Papdita

Edited by Rao Bahadur K V Rangaswami Aiyangar, M A and
A. N Krishna Aiyangar, M A , L T , Adyar Library

4. Paksata of Gadadhara — with four commentaries by Papdit N Santa

nam Aiyar.

5. Avayava of Gadadhara — with four commentaries Pandit N Santa-

nam Aiyar.

6 VrttaratnavalI — with commentary. English Translation and Notes by
H G. Naraiiari, M.A. Adyar Library.

BRAHMAVIDYA

THE ADYAR UBRARY BULLETIN

Director: Dr. G. SRINIVASA MURTI, B.A., B.L.,

M.B. & C.M., Vailyaratna
Editor : PROF. C. Kunhan Raja, M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

Rates of Subscription :

Life Subscription Rs. 100
or i 50
or £ 10

, Per Annum Single Copy

J^ia & Ceylon ... Rs. 6 R&. 2-8

A, . . $ 3 $.1.25

ftfttish Empire ... Sh. 12 Sh. 5

Other l^ountries ... Rs. 9 Rs. 3-8

All Comtn^^^aiionS to be addressed to :

The Director,

A4y0r Library,

Madras, S. India.